Sunday, March 3, 2019


THE POLITICS OF SURVIVOR

ADDENDUM:

Who believes in a run-off between Tony Martinez and Trey Mendez Nurith Galonsky will endorse Trey Mendez?  Not going to happen.  Now in a run-off between Trey and Charlie Cabler, Nurith will endorse Trey to keep Mike Hernandez from having a 4 member majority.  This is how survivor is played in life and politics.

If you are a Survivor or Big Brother fan you know within minutes the players start to make alliances.  The smart ones know the alliance is only as good as the other people are needed to advance.  This is how political alliances are made in political campaigns.

Right now every alliance in in these elections is based on building a political machine to get elected.  Every endorsement is about appearing as the good guy, and accepting the endorsement is about access to other elected officials machines.

Some alliances are real, but most are for convenience.  Look, the prize is a million dollars. When it comes time to let go of an alliance member to move forward I can assure you the candidates will drop whomever they need to to advance.  The realignments will be interesting when the run-offs come.

No on is in the game of politics to allow their alliance members to walk away the winner while they go home empty handed.

Guys this is real.  So for all the trolls who think people are campaigning in an alliance because they intend to vote together, think twice.  The alliance only exists long enough to move forward.

Cabler and Martinez not wanting to admit to the problem of a 4 person majority were allowed to avoid the question in yesterday's podcast.

BOTTOM LINE PEOPLE

Martinez gives Galonsky his 4 member majority

Cabler gives Mike Hernandez and Carlos Marin their 4 person majority

Trey Mendez is the only candidate for mayor who can guarantee there will be no 4 member majority.  This is the solution Martinez and Cabler ran from.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm just curious. Is there any proof to your "alliance" theory? I mean actual, credible, verifiable proof, or is this one of those Bobby Wightman "I have proof but the person who gave me the proof doesn't want me to say anything, so I'm just writing the story with no real proof whatsoever" posts?

If your blog had any legitimacy, it wouldn't print innuendo or speculation. It really is strange that a lawyer, albeit a disbarred one, would really need to be told how important proof is to establish credibility.

Again, it's funny to see what you post as actual "information." It really seems all you deal in is innuendo, speculation, and salacious stories. Yellow Journalism at its finest.

Anonymous said...

Got to agree. You have career potential at the high hurdles based on the leaps you make to reach some of your conclusions. Perhaps you have the proof and can show a logical path to the conclusion but withhold it for some reason. As far as I am concerned that is the same as not having it. If you can not prove it up with logic and facts you fail when you post it.

BobbyWC said...

You can believe all you want no one is running as an alliance but readers just see you of posting words for the sake of it.