Mercury Rising 鳯女

Politics, life, and other things that matter

Marcy Winograd to run again

Posted by Charles II on March 10, 2011

Here’s the link. Debra Bowen and Janice Hahn, party regulars are also in.

I hope the district thinks long and hard about whether they want another Democratic regular.

47 Responses to “Marcy Winograd to run again”

  1. mahakal said

    Debra Bowen is a good candidate, she’s been an excellent Secretary of State and Marcy Winograd wasn’t even able to win a primary in her district much less does she have the demonstrated ability to win a general election. Calling Debra Bowen a “party regular” is pretty silly. She’s given us much more trust in our elections.

    • Charles II said

      There are lots of good people in Washington, Mahakal.

      There are not many with fire in their bellies. That’s the difference between an insurgent and a regular.

      Bowen has certainly been competent, and improved the Cali election system. She would certainly be an improvement over Harman, who seemed to be both clueless and indifferent to ordinary people. But Bowen did not pursue with vigor the case of probable ballot box tampering in San Diego that got her elected. People should have faced court sanctions for doing sleepovers with voting machines. And they didn’t.

      • mahakal said

        How was Debra Bowen responsible for what happened before she was in office? Oh never mind.

      • Charles II said

        I’m sorry. I thought I was quite clear. Evidently not. Let’s try again.

        1. Shenanigans in San Diego –> Election of Bowen, with expectation she would prosecute
        2. Bowen –> No prosecutions
        3. No prosecutions –> Disappointment on the part of election reformers

        Does that lay out the causality reasonably clearly? Of course she was not responsible for the San Diego sleepovers. But if no one pays a price for doing wrong then there’s no reason for others not to do it as well.

  2. mahakal said

    Spurious.

    • Charles II said

      Mahakal, if you believe I have misstated any fact, or that there is context to what I have stated that needs to be added, please say so. Refusing to accept that other people may have fact-based opinions which differ from the ones you would prefer is not discussion. It is trolling.

  3. mahakal said

    Nobody ever expected her to investigate her own election. Seriously. If she wasn’t elected, she wouldn’t have had any authority anyhow. :)

  4. mahakal said

    So how far back is she supposed to go into investigations of elections during previous administrations?

  5. mahakal said

    As far as prosecutions, I think that would be out of her authority anyhow. Talk to the AG.

  6. mahakal said

    Maybe what she should have done is go, oh, some illegal activities which I intend to stop went on before I was elected, therefore my election must be doubted, and stepped down to let a Republican sort it out for her. That would be better.

  7. mahakal said

    I mean you aren’t seriously suggesting she should investigate her own election, and that if she found it valid there would be no possible bias?

  8. mahakal said

    Let’s be clear here, Janice Hahn is the selected replacement for Jane Harman by the establishment. Debra Bowen is a progressive. Marcy Winograd has no chance to win but may play a spoiler role by splitting progressive votes and letting Janice win. Hopefully this will fail, and the top two vote-getters will be Janice and Debra, because otherwise the general election is likely to be between Janice and a Republican.

    • Charles II said

      Mahakal, spamming comments is not appreciated.

      1. It is true that Bowen herself cannot prosecute. She can make referrals for prosecution, which she did not.

      2. You keep repeating the phrase “you aren’t seriously suggesting she should investigate her own election” as if it had any meaning. It does not. Of course any newly-elected official would investigate a crime that occurred prior to his/her election. There is no one else legally-authorized to do so. Furthermore, that election was not exclusively for Secretary of State. The people who raised the issue of sleepovers raised it on behalf of Francine Busby, a congressional candidate. San Diego did not decide the Secretary of State race and, even if it had, the alleged wrongdoing was by Republicans. So, the outcome of Bowen’s race was not affected. Busby’s was and the failure to investigate may well have cost her a seat that she won.

      3. As for wrongdoing, there’s something called a statute of limitations. A public official has a duty to investigate wrongdoing whenever a credible allegation of wrongdoing is made, so long as the statute of limitations has not tolled. If it has tolled, they are not able to investigate. It’s that simple!

      4. As for Winograd being a spoiler, she was the first candidate to announce. Therefore, one could just as easily say Bowen is the spoiler. But I won’t say that about either one. They both believe they are the best candidate. The district voters are adults, and they can make up their own minds. If they end up with Janice Hahn or a Republican and don’t like it, well, November 2012 is not all that far away.

      5. I have not endorsed anyone. I haven’t said that anyone should be denied the seat. I have said that voters should look at their choices exceptionally carefully, and I think they should be suspicious of careerists. A lot of what is wrong in Washington is not because people are good or bad but because they place their careers ahead of the good of the nation.

      • mahakal said

        Disagreeing with you is not spamming. Perhaps you meant to say you do not like the fact that I serial comment rather than composing a long response. Sorry if that offends you, but it isn’t spam. And you’re wrong, Debra Bowen announced her intention right after Janice Hahn did. Marcy’s announcement came later.

      • Charles II said

        Excuse me, Michael, but repeated small posts are spam. I used to get notices of posts on threads I was interested in by e-mail. I am no longer able to do so because my mailbox gets flooded. You can take the time to organize your thoughts into a longer, coherent message. In the course of that, you may find that you can acknowledge some of the points that I make, instead of dismissing them as if you were the only person with a valid opinion.

        In that spirit, you’ve convinced me that Winograd announced after Bowen, and that I was wrong on that point. So, yes, if she pulls sufficient votes, she would be a spoiler.

  9. Charles II said

    I

  10. Charles II said

    mean

  11. Charles II said

    take

  12. Charles II said

    it

  13. Charles II said

    to

  14. Charles II said

    its

  15. Charles II said

    logical

  16. Charles II said

    conclusion.

  17. Charles II said

    Isn’t

  18. Charles II said

    this

  19. Charles II said

    annoying

  20. Charles II said

    to read?

  21. Charles II said

    Burma Shave

  22. mahakal said

    Doesn’t annoy me at all. :)

    • Charles II said

      Well, you now know that there is another, very pronounced, opinion on the issue of how many posts are appropriate. You can choose to respect it or not.

      On the substance of this discussion: Janice Hahn declared for the seat on February 7th (published on the 8th). Debra Bowen announced on February 15th. Bowen declared a week later.

      What would you say to a Hahn supporter who disparaged Bowen as a spoiler? What makes Winograd’s declaration different? (I’ve already said that I don’t recall any qualified candidate to be a spoiler, and that voters can make up their own minds).

      • mahakal said

        Spoiling Janice Hahn’s run would be a *good* thing.

        Remember, we are operating in a top-two system. There won’t be two top Republicans, there might be one or zero. The general election will be between Janice Hahn and someone else, she is the establishment pick. It will not be between Janice Hahn and Marcy Winograd. Who would you like to see Janice Hahn face? Do you prefer a Republican to Debra?

      • Charles II said

        I do not understand how the demand that the third Democrat to announce step aside while the second does not is not hypocrisy. I do not understand why Janice Hahn, who has won labor endorsements (in addition to a lot of Blue Dog endorsements) is somehow not an acceptable candidate. I can hear a supporter of Janice Hahn saying, “Sure, you disagree with me on some issues. But would you rather have a Republican in office? Why split the Democratic vote, when if the Democrat wins a majority, there won’t be a run-off at all?”

        In an ideal world, I think Marcy Winograd would be the Democratic nominee. She is not beholden to special interests. She has demonstrated independence and courage by taking on a powerful incumbent. These are very important qualities critical for leadership. But the district will have to decide.

      • mahakal said

        Sorry not to continue this debate because you are entitled to be committed to your candidate, but you do not seem to understand how the Top Two voting system works in California. There is no chance that Janice Hahn can avoid a run off even if she takes 90% of the vote in the special primary. She will undoubtedly be among the top two, unless somehow a Republican gets more primary votes than she does. The only real question is who Janice Hahn will run against.

      • Charles II said

        Thanks for the correction. Also for allowing me to have my own opinion.

        I don’t think the mechanics of the election system changes the hypocrisy inherent in saying that the second Democrat to enter the race can run, while the third can’t.

      • mahakal said

        I don’t know why you want to accuse me of hypocrisy for wanting Debra to defeat Janice. I do not agree that Janice is a good candidate, she is the continuation of Jane Harman.

      • mahakal said

        And not to piss you off by serial commenting again, but I do need to make a correction. I was mistaken and if a candidate gets over 50% in the top two primary they would not have to go on to a runoff.

      • mahakal said

        Except in presidential contests.

      • Charles II said

        If a candidate who gains a majority automatically wins, then Hahn could easily make the case that Bowen is endangering Democratic control of the seat.

        First, I’m not accusing you of hypocrisy, exactly. Unawareness, perhaps. The position you have adopted seems to me to be, “My candidate challenging Hahn is good. Your candidate challenging Hahn is bad.” I know you think that Bowen is not only good but viable, while Winograd (whatever you think of her) is not viable. But this is clearly a matter of opinion.

        If you assert it as opinion, fine and welcome. But to assert it as fact is not logically consistent. Logical inconsistency in the service of personal preference, e.g., “do as I say, not as I do” is what is called hypocrisy.

      • mahakal said

        Again, I have been *explicit* that spoiling Janice Hahn’s run is a good thing. So it isn’t hypocrisy to advocate.

        Do you think helping Janice by spoiling Debra’s run is a good thing? That’s the question. Not hypocrisy.

      • Charles II said

        I think the good thing is letting whoever wants to run, run and letting voters vote for whoever they like.

        Look, if you can’t see the … problem … in denouncing the third candidate to enter while praising the second, no one can make you see.

  23. mahakal said

    I recommend Calitics. It’s a good blog.

  24. mahakal said

    Congratulations, Marcy successfully gave the second place finish to Republican Craig Huey, who will face Janice Hahn in November.

  25. mahakal said

    Follow-up on Calitics: “To better understand what might happen in 2012, I first need to tell you how we got here, and how Janice Hahn’s strategic choices, coupled with Marcy Winograd’s ego, may have created a perfect storm in which to bring a previously unknown Tea Party candidate to national prominence.”

    • Charles II said

      I missed this comment when it appeared.

      The Calitics piece is an interesting take, Mahakal. But it really tells me what a political tyro Debra Bowen is. She could easily have said, “I will sign the pledge minus its attack on Marcy Winograd. At a time of danger to our nation, we cannot afford to divide the Democratic party with loyalty oaths. I do support a two-state solution.”

      If she couldn’t handle that simple a test, maybe it’s better that she didn’t face Hahn.

      I think you would also do well to read the comments. The first comment tells a different story.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: