Dodging bullets - Page 2

SF progressives didn't do as well at the polls as in the last few election cycles, but it could have been worse

Gavin Newsom is leaving for Sacramento, perhaps the best news of all

In the Board of Supervisors races, it was basically a status quo election that shouldn't alter the body's current politics dynamics much. Sup. Bevan Dufty will be replaced with fellow moderate Scott Wiener in D8 and Sup. Chris Daly by progressive Jane Kim in D6. The outcome of races to replace ideological wobbler Sup. Sophie Maxwell in D10 and conservative Michela Alioto-Pier in D2 may not be conclusively known for at least a few more days (maybe longer if the close races devolve into lawsuits), but neither is a seat that would diminish the board's progressive majority.

Progressives could have made a gain if Rafael Mandelman had won in D8, but he was seven points behind Wiener on election night and even more after the initial ranked choice tally was run on Nov. 5. And in D6, fears that downtown-backed candidate Theresa Sparks might sneak past dueling progressive candidates Jane Kim and Debra Walker never materialized as Sparks finished far behind the lefty pair.

Consultant David Latterman, who worked for Sparks, told us on election night that he was surprised to see that Kim was the choice of 32 percent of early absentee voters "because we targeted those voters." By comparison, Walker was at 20 percent and Sparks was at 21 percent in the initial returns, which tend to be more conservative. By the end of the night, Kim had 31.3 percent, Walker 27.7 percent, and Sparks just 16.5 percent.

"If she did that well with absentees, it seems like it was Jane's race to win. If they choose Jane, they wanted Jane. It's just that simple," Latterman told us on election night.

At her election night party, Kim credited her apparent victory to a strong campaign that she said fielded 400 volunteers on Election Day, most wearing the bright red T-shirts that read "See Jane Run" on the back. "I feel good," Kim told the Guardian. "What I'm really happy about is we ran a really good campaign."

In the end, Kim's campaign was put over the top by the second-place votes of Sparks' supporters, with 769 votes going to Kim and 572 to Walker in the first preliminary run of ranked-choice voter tabulations. But despite the bad blood that developed between progressives in the Kim and Walker campaigns, Board President David Chiu, an early Kim supporter, sounded a conciliatory note, telling the Guardian on election night, "Given where Debra and Jane are, I'm glad that we're going to keep this a progressive seat."



How about L loss Sit/Lie? How could you not analyze that?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 1:14 pm

I mentioned sit-lie high up into the story, but I had limited space and so didn't go into great detail analyzing it. It wasn't a big surprise: fear-mongering and demonizing of the poor are proven tactics to get voters to expand the police state and create new categories of crimes, and that's been true for the last 40 years in this country. Sad, but true. How's that analysis?

Posted by steven on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 2:55 pm

The average citizen can't be trusted to think for themselves so it must have been political spending that is at fault for losses, unless you win, then it was the peoples innate common sense. There really is no wrong answer when it comes to elections for the true believers.

Hate to throw a wrench in the works but I don't think at any time prop L wasn't a winner, long before any money got involved in advertising it one way or another. It was kind of like when the progressive board of supes have a public dog and pony show over fait accompli legislation.

It's also odd that the so called progressives are upset that labor gets a chance to come to the bargaining table with prop G.

It is also odd that the Guardian spent the last six months moaning that the board should have put a host of new taxing schemes on the ballot, demanding that they would have won.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 2:44 pm

Glen, two of the three tax measures on the ballot (AA and N) won by overwhelming margins, while the third tax measure (J) lost by a smaller margin in the face of strong opposition by downtown and Newsom. What we've been saying for six months remains true: San Franciscans are sick of these cuts-only budget solutions.

Posted by steven on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 2:51 pm

"Downtown" has got to be the most overused term in the Bay Guardian dictionary. Sit Lie didn't pass because of downtown interests - it passed because people in this City are sick of walking over and around the various urine soaked bums on the way to work. Prop G didn't pass because of downtown - it passed because anybody who isn't fucking headless could see that the drivers compensation and labor package lead to zero accountability and poor performance among MUN drivers.

The ironically pretentious "Progressive" crowd needs to realize something... whenever people vote or support something contrary to your position, it's not because they're simply not smart enough to see what's really going on. It's not because they have been manipulated by "downtown". It's because they have analyzed the issue at hand and voter according to their interests.

Quite blaming downtwn everytime an election doesn't go your way - maybe you just have shitty positions.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 2:57 pm

I agree, now that must mean that we are just stupid, eh Steve?

Sometimes I am too stupid to know the difference between my elbow and my ass, just last night I stuck my elbow in the toilet and pooed on the floor, ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

Posted by Guest on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 3:25 pm

sit-lie did pass because of downtown interests including chamber of commerce.

sit-lie lost in the haight..

"Sit/Lie Lost In Haight, Won In Pac Heights, Seacliff, West of Twin Peaks" (sf appeal)

Posted by Guest on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 4:25 pm

from your own link, Prop L passed in D6 for gawd's sake! It passed in the same district that elected Chris Daly - twice. Try reading the links you post first.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 4:50 pm

from your own link, Prop L passed in D6 for gawd's sake! It passed in the same district that elected Chris Daly - twice. Try reading the links you post first.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 4:50 pm

from your own link, Prop L passed in D6 for gawd's sake! It passed in the same district that elected Chris Daly - twice. Try reading the links you post first.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 4:50 pm

i read the article B4 posting. you missed the point. the wealthy, big business paid for sit-lie is the point. i've found a link someone gave during the campaign. read this:

Pacific Heights Moguls Fund Sit/Lie
High-tech financiers, not Haight Street merchants, are bankrolling Prop. L

Posted by Guest on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 5:34 pm

"But that's just what he did. "I donated to get the campaign off the ground," Conway wrote in an e-mail. "This movement began by merchants and neighbors coming together and I wanted to help them build their organization as I believe in their cause.""


The whole prop L thing started because the supervisors ignored neighborhood concerns, they actively ignored the people who had to put up with the bums.

Instead of addressing these concerns they got prop L. Now they are attempting to rewrite history and blame prop L on the conspiracy.

Even before it was a prop it polled as a winner.

Stop crying "progressives" your leaders had their chance to avert this and they fucked it off.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 6:02 pm

What is the definition of "downtown"? That term is used a lot by the SFBG and I don't know what it's supposed to mean. Financial district? Business supporters?

I'm not trying to be snide. That term seems a bit amorphous and I'm curious as to the meaning attributed to it.

Posted by The Commish on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 5:42 pm

the effort to criminalize homelessness started in the haight. then came the idea to make sit-lie city-wide. now the city has it but the haight voted against it. as a local born here, i voted no.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 7:30 pm