This weekend I put pen to paper on the political question that’s gonna decide a dozen or more congressional and legislative campaigns… Oddly, most Dems have been fairly quiet about it, while Reps @FlashReport and @spencerpratt keep talking about it capitolweekly.net/is-the-und…

Check out a cool new tool that compares the @Political_Data likely voter universes to the 26P Turnout, for every county, city, council district, congressional, legislative, and other jurisdictions. politicaldata.vote/26G8 This is a sample of #CA13

First returns in #CA14 show a nailbiter! @aishabbwahab at 51.35% around 1,500 votes over @VM_MelHernandez

Yes, @SteveHiltonx's precinct voted for him... and @GloriaJRomero but also voted for Dems @AGRobBonta @BenAllenCA @DrWeber4CA Check it out at myprecinct.politicaldata.vot… You can also search for your own precinct results!

And this debate is the debate worth having. I would offer this: Let's plan for both. Even if you are right that the economy in the future will be rich and everyone will be better off, without the rote jobs that we all secretly dislike, but do because we have to... this won't be a smooth transition. This is hardly a shift the size of the blockbuster economy, which was $5b before imploding due to innovation. That was a pimple on the US economy. I would bet that you and I don't even know anyone who worked at a Blockbuster. Driving alone is a $1 Trillion economic and wages engine in America, and I think you and I agree that is an industry that will be getting rid of human drivers faster than the six years that it took for Netflix to destroy blockbuster. And the peak employment at blockbuster was around 50K, where the current driver economy is 5M. I would bet both of us know people who have been drivers (I have a class 2 from driving for a hospital and I was a courier) or are currently supplementing their income by driving for Uber or DoorDash on the side. So, to plan for this potentially huge economic transition, we could create policies that take effect if I'm right, and also have policies that don't stifle the potential you see in the future. I don't believe in protectionism.. like I wouldn't find it valuable or helpful to pass a law that says a human faux-driver needs to sit in every Waymo. But I do believe there are things we can do that are smart. For example, let's tax the AI companies, give Americans a piece of the AI economic explosion by creating something like a Qatar Sovereign Wealth Fund approach for the potential outcome I fear. We can tie it to the amount of capital being developed by these new economic engines being built in America, and make any pay outs triggered by unemployment rates getting over 10% or objective information about the extent of economic harm done to people who are in industries that are being massively disaffected. If you're right and it's all sunshine and rainbows, then we can buy the PGA back from the Saudis and maybe buy Greenland or whatever. No harm, no foul. And let's simultaneously create an environment that promotes AI acceleration (with guardrails, as we don't want to all be turned into paperclips) and hope that your outcome is what we find. I actually am a tech optimist, and I think in 25 years people will marvel at how their ancestors sat in a chair or car seat 8 hours a day, five days a week, and did that repetitive work and let them define their value in society more than how they were as parents, friends, innovators, athletes, and human beings. We could have a real utopia where people are happier and more productive, etc... But I think it would be a bad read of history to think that this comes smoothly, and that government shouldn't be there to help ensure there isn't a massive class of economic losers who would rather burn the whole place down. Remember, the luddites weren't just people who didn't like technology, they were people who believed in "collective bargaining by riot." Google the related "Swing Riots" or the violence called for in the theme of "Live working, or die fighting" (which is kinda the dumbest theme ever... especially since the work they were doing was grueling... but it was all they had, and it was their only perceived pathway to being able to help their families.) We can actually be smart about this. And if you see what @GavinNewsom is proposing here, and listen to his last couple podcasts he did with Reid Hoffman and Andrew Yang, I think you will see that he is actually be objectively smart about this. He has really read up on this stuff and speaks about these issues with a dexterity that I haven't seen among any other politicians, (aside from one State Senator from West Sacramento). Again, you can oppose his solutions, but I don't think it's the right time to just reflexively say "this is Gavin, screw him" and make it a partisan polarized issue. As much as there are different sides to this issue (and, honestly, among the most educated in AI policy and economics there isn't as much division as you would think) I think this is the most important debate of our time. And for our kid's sake, and our country's sake, I hope we don't screw this up.

There’s a little Schrödinger’s Primary effect here… where observing, it changes it. Once Democrats became aware of the risk of a top two Republican runoff, that almost ensured it wouldn’t happen. Sacramento orgs got in line, voters got in line. Goal #1 was avoiding the lockout. Then the late polling that showed possibility of two Dems making it to the runoff ensured that wouldn’t happen. It gave @SteveHiltonx a strong closing message: “There is absolutely no guarantee that we're going to get a Republican in the top two. In fact, it's now looking more and more likely that we'll have two Democrats in the top two.” If those polls had shown Hilton with a stronger position or in the all-out lead, he could have ironically fallen into third because his voters would have been more free to vote for Bianco!

What’s funny is that in 2014 nobody felt their faith in elections was undermined when @BettyYeeforCA edged out @JohnAPerez for the second spot after *27-days* of counting. Nobody yelled about fraud or attacked the system. They kept faith in our elections. kqed.org/news/140715/yee-app…

Are we in a position where the @AP should be calling @SteveHiltonx for the second spot and give us a free weekend? Steyer needed to gain 110k per million on Hilton, but he’s gaining 70k per million right now, and was at 50 per million in previous batches. As a result his hill got steeper and the runway is shorter. He now has to start hitting 121k per million, basically double his rate for the last three days.