Youtuber Meet Kevin Has Best Odds to Replace Gavin Newsom

The Prediction site Predictit Gives Youtuber Kevin Paffrath (aka Meet Kevin), a 9% chance to replace Gavin Newsom as governor of California.

Kevin is knowledgable about business and technology and is willing to do the work. He has creative solutions.

Meet Kevin Paffrath for Governor 2021

Kevin Paffrath has said he would declare four States of Emergency on Day 1:

* State of Emergency: Ending Homelessness within 60 days.
* State of Emergency: Housing Crisis: State to Take Over ALL Building and Safety/ Development for Expediting Building Permits IMMEDIATELY.
* State of Emergency: Creating Future Schools to immediately provide a free path to financial, vocational, high school, and college education in ONE platform.
* State of Emergency: Transportation: Immediately authorizing and requiring private proposals for tunnels, variable toll roads, mass transit, roads, and ending High-Speed-Rail Funding.

Meet Kevin Paffrath will also introduce legislation on day one to waive income taxes on the first $250,000 of income, permanently. He also intends to legalize gambling.

Meet Kevin Paffrath also intends to institute community policing and incentivize localized manufacturing and utilize a Carbon Tax to offset the removal of taxes on $250,000 of income for workers and investors.

SOURCES- Meet Kevin, PredictIt
Written By Brian Wang,

33 thoughts on “Youtuber Meet Kevin Has Best Odds to Replace Gavin Newsom”

  1. So he wants to save CA by doubling down on the policies that have already been shown to be ineffective. What Californians need is more freedom not more authoritarianism.

  2. OK, that's just messed up.

    Though not what I pictured from the term "children". But legally speaking I suppose some of them were under 18.

  3. My threshold for idiot might be a bit higher than for others. I have this crazy notion that leaders should have some understanding of reality and not just psychology and an ideology of their choice.

  4. The title is extremely misleading since the prediction website gives gavin newsom a 89 percent vs 9 percent for kevin paffrath (as seen in the picture). So it is true that paffrath is the highest scoring candidate after the governor, but the governor is more or less 10 times more likely to win.

  5. Agree the 60 days is a big ask. When I lived in the Bay area, my friend's business in Oakland was surrounded by a huge sprawling homeless camp. Apparently it started under an overpass but had spread continuously for years.

    The homeless were junkies on heroin mostly and they supported themselves with petty crime. They defecated wherever they wanted and left needles everywhere. Letting people sink so low is not "progressive" or "tolerant" and it isn't kind.

    My suggestion is clear out these camps. Build them a new camp somewhere they can't be a nuisance or get access to drugs. If they don't want to go to the new camp, that's fine–but they can't stay where they are. The new camp will have nicer tents, and access to free food and basic health care. Offer the junkies methadone as long as they work a 12 step plan toward eventually getting clean. Anyone who commits crimes, uses drugs, or abuses camp property goes to jail. The homeless who are able to get and stay clean will be offered some kind of menial job (for the state or with one of those companies that hires even mentally retarded people) and their own single-wide trailer or one-bedroom apartment.

  6. So deregulate zoning. Kevin is your best bet. He is definitely not an idiot. Watch his videos before you write him off.

  7. My readings of the map indicate that Mexico would be a cheaper bus ride (truck, railcar…) than either Florida or Venezuela.

  8. Also putting all the homeless in concentrated areas will promote crime and destruction…and possibly beatings from the abusive children of the rich.

    So, if I've got the correct, you're telling me that the problem with homeless people is that rich children attack and beat them? Thats… not how I would have guessed things would go.

    Though, it is how the story of Hansel and Gretel finished…

  9. You would have to enlarge such institutions. Both in sense of sheer number of rooms and in all the staff that would be needed to care for the people, clean the rooms, prepare meals, and (given it's involuntary) keep them in.

    The ability to do that alone in 60 days is a big ask.

  10. You could easily end (involuntary) homelessness with the resources California spends. But you would have to get rid of the graft and red tape. You would also have to get serious about putting the truly insane people in institutions.

  11. He sounds great and I wish him well, but he doesn't stand a chance in Cali.

  12. It's very California to try to elect entertainers as politicians. They are well versed in deceiving the public after all…

    Seriously though, Reagan and Schwarzenegger were actors, and didn't immediately create tire fire levels of messes…

  13. I have a plan to solve homelessness. #1 If your mentally ill, despot, druggie alcohol burn out, criminally repeat offender or all of the above, #2 Caught 3 times on the street and not willing to take help from the government with consistency #3 A judge decrees you a ward of the state.

    Will be shipped off to a country like Venezuela or Columbia willing to house and infirm the person until death or recovery back to a manageable health. Win-Win for a 3rd world country willing to take our despots and make money. No unions, no state or city politics. Just a plane or boat ride. Goodbye.

  14. Solve homelessness by having the state to tell where you will live and apparently force you to live there. What happens when I just walk out and set up camp in the park again? Do I get arrested, are we back to police hustling bums out of town for the night? What's the cheapest way to solve the problem, charter buses to Florida?
    Frankly, his 'emergency decree' regime comes off as very totalitarian, so glad I'm 30 years removed from the state.

  15. We don't know who the final list of candidates will be yet.
    Larry Elder was denied standing to run as a candidate because of supposedly incomplete or redacted filing of Taxes( effectively the 'Trump rule', which the court struck down for presidential candidates but let stand for state elections). This is being challenged in court as we speak.

    What odds do you give that the problem is legit?

  16. Only elitists snobs want toll roads. Toll roads are the biggest sign that government is failing in its duty, and have their priorities scrambled.
    Free housing for the homeless? We will get every homeless person in the US and the other States will be paying the bus fare to dump them here. Also putting all the homeless in concentrated areas will promote crime and destruction…and possibly beatings from the abusive children of the rich. The increased medical care alone will be a strain.
    Obviously an idiot.
    We do need more construction, but with it must come the infrastructure and the city planning must be good. We have this problem in California where we put all the same sorts of businesses together. That means everyone has to drive several miles to get to it. That is poor planning you want every sort of business in close proximity to residential. And it is doubly dim when it is all the medical stuff in one place, as it takes longer to get people medical care and even those who want to be close because of medical issues they have can't live close by as nothing is zoned residential anywhere near the medical area. And you can see the congestion on Google Maps. The congestion happens near these unnatural concentrations.

  17. Nice mostly, however no one even with the best intentions who went into government ever found a way to make sweeping reform in 60 days. Unless in time of emergency, which we are not.

  18. Brian is promoting individual political candidates now?

    I'm probably more left than most people on this forum, but Kevin sounds way too big-government for me. I had to laugh on the "end homelessness in 60 days" directive. The guy is obviously out of touch with reality. Talk to the census workers, we couldn't even reliably count the number of homeless people in 60 days, let alone do anything about it.

  19. The military SPS plans as far as I can tell are using targeting radar as they are setting up a separate system to measure the flatness of the launched arrays. With any system I would consider, there is a *phaser*, set on stun, which makes the return path one of far simpler construction. Thus, with a simple screen in orbit, the rectennae can start getting power from radars on Earth to get things going. Criswell plan uses these same screens, but they are quite close to Earth, so the sending for Earth to Earth would be smallish. This will work now. A big viable system. A start to LSP scale. There is excess Earth solar and wind to move around. Send some to me. Later, put some sats in Space.

  20. There is no "Earth to Earth", there's a planet in the way of that. Earth to orbit to Earth could be a thing, technically.

    But with geosynch SPS, there's no expense or efficiency loss from redirection systems. It's just one hop. And a phased array antenna can already target multiple ground sites, while a solar panel in geosynch will enjoy virtually 100% duty cycle.

    Again, the geosynch SPS is the minimum viable system, requires the least investment to build, has the least operational complexity. Even if the advantage of using lunar materials ON the Moon would compensate for the extra equipment and reduced duty cycle, (I have my doubts.) it's not the entry level system, it's something you might convince people to build after SPS had been proven.

  21. For more detail on power beaming, the NSSO 2007 study pg 7 does not show redirectors in graphic. But, in A-2 "because the Moon is not geostationary, [LSP] would require reflectors or re‐transmitters in Earth orbit, or a global power distribution grid to enable continuous power to be delivered to markets on the Earth." and A-4 "However, Lunar concepts require relays, and papers have been published which propose a constellation of relay satellites to distribute power around the globe."

    These are not quite getting the idea of Earth to Earth, yet.

  22. Well, *the goal* has different meanings depending upon perspective. You are quite right and libertarian by pointing out the suck nature of the System. This is the death, not the mere weakness, of do goodism by force. But, for the goal of doing something, you know, useful.

    Let me redefine "Criswell" to include the Earth to Earth power beaming. He sez it is "ENERGY INDUSTRY GROWTH TO LSP SYSTEM" pg 13, but curiously this is ancient, 2009, so the notion of excess wind or Earth solar was not apparent, perhaps. When the system is ground tested with minimal launch, of the redirector screens only, then any source of a power beam will do, let the market decide. The problem is solved!

    If your plan is for at least 10 TWe. The steps along the way are fine with me. But we cannot be talking of anything less in our presentation. Why would anyone care? People are concerned about this *energy* stuff.

  23. The key point here is that the goal is not, in fact, to reduce carbon usage. If it were, they'd do other things. The goal actually IS to create opportunities for graft. While producing a cash flow that can be used to purchase votes.

    The fraud isn't incidental, it's the point of the exercise. Look at how wealthy Gore, the author of the carbon credit scam, got, selling carbon indulgences. 

    I've already explained why I think Criswell is not the way to go if you're starting out with space solar power; The minimum viable system is just too big, geosynchronous satellites let you start feasibly small. And the carbon tax yield in California would hardly pay to even start such a project. But if they indicated an intent to use the money on something like that, it would at least be evidence they weren't just trying to line their pockets.

  24. Ah, that would be a socialist idea for a tax. Simple case: If I pay a fee to have my garbage removed, I expect the garbage to be removed, not just discouragement when the garbage can is always full, so I don't make as much, the fee's job. Deal with the actual problem at the root. Start that now, put a libertarian in charge.

    Now, the complex situation you describe, the current one, has a history of simple business fraud from many of the makers and sellers of C products, or related C02 emissions. They will not pay a tax, but a FINE or PENALTY, that can be used more creatively than just removing C from air, such as Criswell LSP (find searchanddiscovery link), which will be owned by the victims, ideally.

    The tax idea, well, we already see the problem. Use the money to get re elected. Not that all of the money would go to the wrong people, as C victims, just a disconnected plan that puts the power addict in charge. Importantly, if you re imburse the victims for higher C costs due to the tax, it does not (100%) discourage/reduce C use/presence, the orig goal, as much as it could spent otherwise on the C problem.

    "Home, home on the range . . ."

  25. He may be 'creative', but intending to rule by emergency decree is a really bad sign in an executive. Creative AND dictatorial is a nasty combination.

  26. In theory, the carbon fee IS doing something about carbon: Discouraging burning it. Granted, you'd get more bang for the buck if you then spent the money on reducing burning it still further. But the theory here is that you ameliorate the economic damage from the tax by giving the money to the hardest hit, to compensate for everything suddenly becoming more expensive.

    I'm curious how he plans to eliminate homelessness in 60 days: Providing free bus tickets to Nevada?

  27. "utilize a Carbon Tax to offset the removal of taxes on $250,000 of income for workers and investors." Um, why not use the Carbon FEE to do something about the Carbon? Would that be too rational?

Comments are closed.