Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

Tear Apart of S.S. Vanguard Lukewarm Jones Pro-ish Post

By Alan C. Miller

And now, another blog posting from S.S. on the D.V.G.:

https://davisvanguard.org/2026/10/eric-jones-mike-thompson-ca4

And my tear apart:

“I am not fully for one candidate or the other. I see that Mike Thompson’s Establishment-Democrat methods and policies have been failing us for a while now.” — S.S.

You’re not fully for Eric Jones, but you claim Mike Thompson has failed us. Uh huh . . .

“Eric Jones offers a worthy alternative, even as he and his supporters have drawn significant ire . . . ” — S.S.

Can’t imagine why.

“Perhaps the independent, patriotic right can join the independent, patriotic left (and the middle, too) to vote for change” — S.S.

Perhaps those right/left patriotic pigs can fly [see illustration, above].

“While I might have preferred an outspoken progressive in the mold of Abdul El-Sayed . . . ” — S.S.

So, you’d like an Israel hater, by any other name.

“Jones is a populist/progressive, anti-establishment capitalist outsider . . . ” — S.S.

Outsider, of Yolo County, as well . . .

“Blue Dogs are notorious for breaking rank to vote against progressive populists, usually against most everyone’s interest . . . ” — S.S.

Your interest, in other words.

“[Thompson] believes he has been a good steward of an economy and social structure that serves the very wealthy.” — S.S.

And Eric Jones’ campaign is funded by the very wealthy.

“Jones is new, and not a progressive panacea.” — S.S.

What ever happened to those progressive panacea candidates?

“His reliance on market solutions makes his economic views closer to Thompson’s than mine.” — S.S.

The nerve of him relying on market solutions.

“Has [Jones] stuck to his no-PAC, corporate-money, and anti-donor-influence positions? Yes.” — S.S.

No.

“Critics of Jones complain that his rhetoric changes with the audience.” — S.S.

Thank you for trumpeting our point.

“Eric’s position on affordability hasn’t changed; he won’t accept the status quo system where most won’t be able to buy a home until they’re 40, if ever.” — S.S.

And I won’t accept the status quo on pigs not flying.

“[Jones] did not become convinced of the infallibility of foreign countries and their insatiable need to massacre an entire people under the pretext of safety.” — S.S.

Any . . . particular . . . foreign country you are speaking about, SS? Flying pig got your chicken tongue?

“[Jones] is more likely to continue fighting for structural change rather than settling for the decline of business as usual.” — S.S.

I thought the decline of business as usual was what you were looking for, SS

Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

One response to “Tear Apart of S.S. Vanguard Lukewarm Jones Pro-ish Post”

  1. Spot on, ACM.

    Wow… Scott Steward’s article is…. odd. My favorite part is where he admits that “Thompson is a Democrat, and many of his policies are preferable. He cares deeply for his community.” Exactly. He should have stopped there. Vote for Thompson.

    So what is it that overturns things for Scott? Well, Jones is new. So? A lot of people would be new. JD Vance. Trump’s sons and daughters. Do we want any of them? And he doesn’t fit the mold, whatever that is. Like Fetterman? Do we want someone like that? Because Jones shows all the signs of being a Fetterman. Better to have a reliable Democratic vote than a turncoat.

    Scott thinks that Jones has “drawn significant ire from those who view challenging the Democratic establishment candidate as a personal affront.” Who is that?? Not me, who has been one of the most prolific Jones critics out there. And not anyone I have read. I’ve said from the beginning I’d be happy to have a credible progressive challenging Mike Thompson. But Jones is neither credible nor progressive.

    Finally, Scott conveniently leaves out the MILLIONS of dollars from the Silicon Valley Super PAC supporting Jones and the MILLIONS more in direct donations from his former venture capitalist colleagues and other Silicon Valley execs. So, exactly as ACM says above, that the answer to the following question is “no” : “Has [Jones] stuck to his no-PAC, corporate-money, and anti-donor-influence positions?” Not by a longshot. Yet Jones continues to repeat that ridiculous claim. So he’s bought and paid for by Silicon Valley AND he’s deceptive at best, lying at worst.

    Unless you are a tech oligarch, Jones is not someone you should want in office.

Leave a comment