Thread by @RL_Miller

gonna spill some tea on the defeat of #Prop30 and you can start with this @grist piece but I've got more bit.ly/3tGo7Ix

1. Original backers failed to do early outreach. I know because they did not do outreach to me and I'm sorry to sound egotistical but NO ONE talked to the former chair of the Cal Dem Party's enviro caucus early and I didn't hear about it til shortly before CDP e-board July 2021.

1a. I'm pretty involved in CA enviro politics. And the 1st personal outreach I got on it was... IDK, maybe August or Sept after I responded to an email, long after CDP voted on it.

1b. So I started off with the same belief that everyone else had: funded by Lyft, written by Lyft, to benefit Lyft. And I spread that info widely among CDP delegates. The vote at e-board to endorse it was divided.

1c. It wasn't until after July e-board that Prop 30 authors at Cal Enviro Voters began pushing out the important message: they wrote it, Lyft was only providing the $$$.

Allayed my concerns but by then the message had taken hold.

1d. Beyond my egotistical anecdote, larger picture was: failure to assemble a good coalition AND ARM THEM WITH THE TRUTH early on.

2. This one is really important. Go beyond Lyft for funding. Two subpoints here, see next couple of tweets.

2a. You get a $10M commitment from Lyft, you immediately go to ____ and match that. (Steyer? Apple? Bueller? Anyone at all?) The appearance of being funded solely by Lyft was fatal. As noted in point 1, many people believed that Prop 30 was written by Lyft for Lyft's benefit.

2b. This is equally important on coalition politics. LISTEN TO LABOR, Enviro Voters. They really really really underestimated the hatred most Cal Dems have for Lyft, because of the Prop 22 battle, which was Lyft and Uber vs labor-minded Dems.

2b (more) Every single talk I gave to Dem clubs supporting Prop 30 acknowledged "I hate Lyft, BUT here's why you shd vote for it anyway" and I know many many Dem leaders did the same.

2b (yet more) Labor and enviro folk don't always get along in Cal. And this one just adds to the hostility between the two camps.

Build bridges, not walls. And don't hire Lyft to drive over the bridge. (sorry not sorry)

3. IDK if anything could have been done re the Newsom opposition. That factor was HUGE. It's well known in the Capitol that the Gov wants to run for Pres on a message of solving climate without cutting taxes, and Prop 30 f*cked with that message.

3a. But if the Enviro Voters coalition had gotten out the truth (they wrote it not Lyft) before Newsom came out with his piece (written/ funded by Lyft to benefit Lyft) it might have helped. Again, Message Fail 101.

4. I just gotta mention the Steve Maviglio factor. IDK when he came on. He's a mod Dem consultant who most progressive Dems despise. I finally unfollowed him because of his persistent abuse on twitter. Having him on board...ah, not helpful. Whatever he did. ANYTHING he did.

4a. Maybe he's the reason no one ever contacted me? IDK? But I will donate the 1st $8 to the Steve Maviglio Blue Check Account, tweeting things like "Fuck off, Dems, now vote for my ballot initiative funded by AT&T/ Juul/ Lyft/ All the Corporate Scumbags of Sacramento."

5. The Cal Dem Party outreach was... unimpressive. One mailer early on, maybe late Sept? As far as I could see they didn't do any other mailers re any other propositions, so that's 1 mailer more than they spent supporting SEIU priority Prop 29.

6. IDK if this one was sloppy messaging or sloppy bill writing. I read the initiative. I know that benefits were supposed to go into 3 buckets: wildfire, EV charging, and SOMETHING REALLY AMORPHOUS re EVs.

6a. I tried to figure out what was in that 3d bucket. I really did. It was not well defined. Something about 50 percent OF WHAT??? going to low income families. I was totally f*cking guessing when I was giving talks to Dem clubs. More rebates for EVs? E-bikes? Public transit???

6b. Honestly, this was half the political malpractice. When well connected climate advocates who have read Prop 30 cannot articulate how the bill is going to benefit voters, there's a huge problem.

6c. If the intent was to create buckets of $ and then appoint CARB to figure out how to spend it, or give it to a new climate czar, or what... just f*cking say so. In your talking points if not in the bill.

6d. If, OTOH, the intent was to give EV drivers another $2500 or $5000 rebate or whatever, just f*cking say so. Again. In your talking points if not in the bill.

7. I'm spilling some tea and hope that folk are listening not because I dislike Enviro Voters (some of my friends work there!) but because I hope this will come back in '24. Smarter.

7a. Write a better bill (one that doesn't p!ss off the teachers). Assemble a better source of funding, not one that is anathema to most Cal Dems. Do a better job messaging. Get the Gov on board. We could call it Prop 30-2.

Thread, ended, except for me fixing 1 egregious error.

Gov NOT RAISING TAXES, not Gov not cutting taxes. Whoops. h/t @kirkmurphy

https://twitter.com/RL_Miller/status/1591152814448779264

Anyway, thread ended.