 |
|
Alameda County Supervisor Wilma Chan said she
did not believes her campaign could raise the
needed $1.6 million in SD9.
|
STATE SENATE | DISTRICT 9 | Alameda County Supervisor Wilma is abandoning her bid for next year’s open state Senate race in the East Bay’s Ninth District. Chan cited a struggle to raise what she believes is the requisite amount of money needed for a likely grueling June primary and general election campaign, while still performing her duties as a county supervisor and being with her family.
She leaves the field to fellow Democrats Sandré Swanson and Nancy Skinner. They both have sizable support in the East Bay among progressives following two terms each in the state Assembly.
While Chan said she was successful in building a campaign based on local support, she also found that raising at least $1.6 million to run an effective race was an “exceedingly high bar.”
“Unfortunately, political races are increasingly dependent on money and less on grassroots support and action,” Chan wrote to her supporters. “It has become clear that the window of time I have to raise the necessary funds will be difficult given my responsibilities to my constituents. It has also become clear that the needs of my family must come first.”
ebcitizen.com 
The article is very productive. And help to make better the thoughts. Buy Embroidery Designs
LikeLike
By MW:
Last night I did a few minutes of research into the backgrounds of Nancy Skinner, Sandre Swanson, and Wilma Chan, and did not see any comments from any source indicating that even one of them had ever practiced law – or even gone to law school.
Therefore, I am going to have to consult with a few law school professors and find out of it is Unconstitutional to even consider having a Democratic Party primary election in which not even one of the major candidates is a lawyer.
LikeLike
Thanks for shedding some light.
Bill 'Baa Baa Baa Boom' Lockyer!
LikeLike
By MW:
I do definitely need to get a pair of reading glasses. In other words in my above post, I should NOT have referred to the post of 7:33 but instead to the post of 11:43.
LikeLike
By MW:
In regard to the comment of 7:33AM, and which was a comment about the post of 8:15, I do not think 8:15 was trying to be sexist, but most likely was merely providing an opinion on the “standards” and “ethics” of politicians
In fact a few decades ago it came out that the wife of one of the most prominent lawyers in the Atlanta area was working as a callgirl. And when that information became public, most people thought the husband, and including due to his being such an extremely prominent person, and perhaps even a town father and pillar of the community would be extremely embarrassed,
However the husband, and who was a lawyer, said he did not find it embarrassing at all that his wife was a callgirl, or even that it was widely known that she was a callgirl, since he said that a lot of the things that went on in the legal profession were even a lot sleazier than working as a prostitute.
And related to that, every single time you hear the name of this or that high ranking elected official mentioned, you will notice that about twenty percent of the Republicans and fifty percent or more of the Democrats are lawyers.
LikeLike