The race to replace disgraced former mayor Bob Filner between Democrat David Alvarez and Republican candidate Kevin Faulconer, both former city council members and local government colleagues, ended with a decisive victory for Faulconer.

Faulconer promises to work to heal a city that is reeling from the second resignation of a Mayor in a decade, winning February’s special election in a decisive victory which will allow him to remain in office for the remainder of the disgraced former Mayor’s term, which ends in 2016 (coincidentally).

Faulconer distanced himself from the mainline GOP while emphasizing his native California roots where hard work and education were emphasized (his father worked for the city of Oxnard, his mother worked as a secretary as she completed her education at night school, eventually obtaining a PhD and retiring as a Dean of Ventura College) as well as reminding voters he was endorsed by, and worked with, others on the opposite side of the aisle, making a considered effort to position himself as “the” candidate occupying the center of the political spectrum.

A talented and hard working politician – and one whom many dismiss far too easily, has the pundit classes wondering if Faulconer is this generation’s “Ronnie Reagan” who can pragmatically change the face of the Republican party from a foothold in staunchly Democratic California.

While a member of the City Council, Faulconer was chair of the Audit committee, tasked with getting the city’s credit rating restored, and according to colleagues on both sides of the aisle, he took his mission seriously and worked to repair the city’s finances and credibility, culminating with the city successfully regaining its credit rating, balancing its budget and addressing the issues that matter to the taxpayers of San Diego, starting with addressing the funds needed for long overdue street repairs, and dealing with the homelessness endemic to the city.  He also led the effort in 2010 against a Democrat sought massive sales tax increase, and worked to institute meaningful pension reform and retiree health care costs.  This, as one can imagine, singled him out for special enmity from the unions.

Alvarez, on the other hand, absolutely – and some would say, pathologically – refused to budge from the far left Progressive position he had carved out for himself, even declining to court the Democratic supporters of the candidate he beat in the Democratic primary campaign, Nathan Fletcher.

Many people believed Alvarez was complacent because of the over $4 million that was poured into his campaign,  the on-the-ground and financial support of the unions, the backing of the Interim Mayor, democratic Todd Gloria (who cites in his political resume that one of his “accomplishments” was the addition of the phrase “sexual orientation” to the non-discrimination policy at USD while a political studies student there) as well as the vigorous endorsement of Barack Hussein Obama (mmm, mmmm, mmmm ….) who weighed into the race, and, for the icing on the divisive Grievance cake,  he positioned himself as the future historical “Hispanic” mayor of San Diego.

Alvarez, a former legislative aide who grew up in a Spanish speaking home, marketed his family’s immigrant roots to an electorate that the Registrar estimates is 18 percent Latino. He embraced a populist and Progressive style campaign theme of “stripping power from hoteliers and developers” who he claimed improperly controlled the city.  Overt appeals to race and class division seemed to be the hallmarks of his listless campaign strategy, as he oft repeated his background of growing up in the impoverished working class, citing his father found work as a janitor and his mother labored in a fast-food restaurant.  Such emotional appeals based in class conflict eventually turned out to be a failure, with voters choosing a track record of accomplishments and proven fiscal and fiduciary responsibility instead.

Progressive Democrats are still reeling over the crushing 9 point loss in what is viewed as a “Democratic town” (the majority of the elected city council members are affiliated with the Democratic party), but refuse to accept the underlying voter emotions and obvious rebuke of the far left Progressive agenda that lead to his defeat.

What does it all mean?  Well, not as much as many would hope – the New York Times singing Faulconer’s praises (you should immediately be suspicious) – but certainly, the status quo belief that truck loads of union dollars and ground support will crush any Republican in a Democratic sympathetic town was found to be no longer valid, and it is clear that the “endorsement” of Barack Hussein Obama means very little – inside or outside of the US.  The magic is gone.  In spite of the caveats, it is a good sign that perhaps voters are ready to embrace true moderates, from any side of the aisle, and it is most definitely a strong rebuke of both heavy-handed union tactics and demands as well as teh Won.

Faulconer’s next moves definitely deserve some attention, especially if he seeks to gain a foothold on the national stage leading up to the 2016 election cycle.