I think the anti-E forces really stepped up their campaign in the last couple weeks before the election. I am pretty sure that they didn't mail until well after the absentees were out.

So I am not all that surprised that it's not swinging the way we might think it should (and I made the same prediction).

I have an absolutely stupid and useless question: Right now Kamala Harris has about 98% of the vote and "write-in" has about 2%. But there are no qualified write-in candidates for the job.

Does this mean the WRITE-IN tally includes disqualified WRITE-IN counts?

LIES, DAMN LIES & STASTICS.
Now I was never much good even at the old math, so correct me if I'm wrong but....
Hey Gavin - Spin this.
Number of Registered Voters..............416,000
Number of Votes for Newsom............... 44,885
Demonstrated Support Citywide............ 9.27%

Number of Mayoral Votes Cast............. 50,058
Number Opposing Newsom................... 20,456
Demonstrated Opposition Citywide......... 40.86%

Amazing how one can manipulate and pervert apparent reality to one's own ends.
Gosh Eric, looked at this way it seems like even less of a 'mandate' than that claimed by George Bush.
Patrick Monk.RN. Noe Valley.

You people are absolutely pathetic. It's hilarious how far you'll go to believe all San Francisco voters buy your "progressive" bullshit. Guess what? We didn't. Newsom has overwhelmingly won election and spin it how you will but 68% is pretty damned impressive.

And Prop E!! Defeating that is I'm rolling on the floor that that one. We saw right through Chris Daly's attempt to force the mayor to bend to his will - and we rejected it.

Ahhhh... Victory is sweet. I'm salivating over the possibilities for replacing so many "progressive" Supervisors over the next 4 years. An outcome, I might add, that is looking more and more like a distinct probability after the ass kickin' your side received this election.

Oh please, Shane. 68% (and probably lower than that once the full results are in) of one of the lowest turnouts in SF history is nothing to write home about, especially when you realize that the race was written off months ago and none of his opponents had the financial resources.

Consider this: Newsom had a 3 million dollar warchest for a race he was guaranteed to win. I'm assuming this is for 2 reasons: 1) to shore up a "mandate" as a dry run for the 2010 gubernatorial race and 2) to avoid embarrassing himself in front of the BoS. I can think of a few more productive and helpful ways to spend that much money.

And considering the extremely slim margin that E is losing by, a sizable chunk of Newsom's phony mandate thought Question Time was a good idea.

C.W. Nevius proclaimed Newsom's re-election as a "landslide win" in the Chron today. Talk about spin/delusion/denial.

The Progressives are the first to complain about what a terrible job Newsom has done. But when push comes to shove, no one had the guts to stand up to him up at the polls. Instead, they throw their support behind a bit player - Quintn Mecke? The so-called big Progressive summit in June basically turned out to be much ado about nothing. At which point, Chris “Cussing” Daly vowed to run if the party doesn’t produce a serious candidate. Yet, to this day, I am still puzzled as the “real reason” why he didn’t go through with his bluff? He claimed it was due to family obligations. But was it because the truth would have been told. Daly is so disliked on a city wide basis that Newsom would have taken him to the cleaners – A vote for Gavin Newsom would have been a vote AGAINST Chris Daly. Now SFBG, Spin This.

Quick, here's my impression of a Newsom campaign worker:

"Chris Daly Chris Daly. Chris Daly... Chris Daly. Daly. Daly. DALY. DALY. CHRIS DALY CHRIS DALY CHRISDALYDFKJDSIEULKJDFDS" (flecks of spittle and foam fly out)

By the way, if Newsom's running for Senator, he'll have to wait until 2012, and that's only assuming Feinstein retires. And Daly just had a kid less than a week ago, so why the hell wouldn't he want to be with his family instead of running for mayor?

Back in Jun, Chris Daly vowed that if the Progressives didn't come up with a candidate that would give Newsom a run, he would step up. Now, if he just had a kid last week, he must have known his wife was pregnant in Jun - unless my math is way off. The Progressives continue to back this guy up - not realizing that he is their greatest liability. He has even alienated his fellow Progressives on the board. And the only reason why he is even in public office is because of the flaws of district elections. But he will be termed out soon – and I doubt that he would ever win a city wide election.

Chris just moved three good government bills through the Board of Supervisors this past week, expanding public financing of supervisor races, requiring pollsters to disclose push polls, requiring reporting of independent expenditure mailers and requiring petition gatherers to disclose whether they are paid and by whom or volunteer.

These measures all moved forward with 8 votes. Next up comes a law to prevent city employees who are supervisors from having sexual relations with their subordinates--the don't get your honey where you get your money act of 2007--which will check the exposure of the City to sexual harassment lawsuits in those unlikely cases where mayors do their appointments secretaries.

The reason why money was spent this cycle was to ensure that Eric Jaye, Jim Ross, Barnes Mosher, Whitehurst & Lauter and Jim Sutton all get paid.

But it looks like Newsom will only get 40% of the vote he got in 2003--now that's an embarassment!

That said, UP AND OUT! As soon as Newsom can move up to higher office, the sooner we're rid of his hair gel greased vacuity in SF.

Write-ins are only counted for keeps when a write-in candidate registers officially. The numbers are counted in the aggregate for people like me who wrote in "Ben Rosenfeld," "Randy Knox" and "Matt Gonzalez" for DA.

Kamala seems to have dropped off when compared to the returns of Mayor and Sheriff. This seems to reflect public concern with skyrocketing violent crime and murder and might not bode well for her mayoral aspirations in 2011.

Sasha is correct. I posted this here on Wednesday morning...

"Thanks, Tim. Hopefully all that late money spent against E won't sour the election day voters. A special thanks to Sarah Phelan for her coverage of the dirty money in this election..."

Election day voter support of the policy discussion statement (11/06 Prop I) jumped 6 points over the absentees (53% to 59%). This, of course, was with no organized campaign for or against. This year Phil Ginsberg dialed for dollars making the personal appeal. Gavin peddled No on E literature on Election Day. I guess that they sunk Prop E with somewhere between $150,000-$200,000 and made many promises to the big donors.

> As soon as Newsom can move up to higher office, the sooner we're rid of his hair gel greased vacuity in SF.

Newsom does his homework and speaks to the city's issues with precision and erudition. That's more than can be said for too many of the city's progressives, who's frothy proclaimations usually have little to do with fact and more to do with their overheated, paranoid imaginations.

Jeff, when MUNI meets Newsom's 1999 service standards, when the streets are kept up in good repair and clean, when we address the root causes of and implement scalable solutions to homelessness and public drug addiction, when the streets are safe to cross and ride on, when our teachers are paid and housed well, when the cops are "ridden roughshod over," and when they keep us safe from violent crime for as much as we pay them, when Newsom eliminates the layer of incompetent political appointees who probably cost the City more in mismanagement than the worst labor contracts, when hardscrabble policy follows up on breathless press release, then perhaps Newsom will be doing his job as Mayor.

But until then its all smoke and mirrors, all benefits to downtown while the neighborhoods languish for services.

You are correct, however, that progressives are lacking on affirming proactive solutions. But pointing out the faults of your opponents is a not very effective way of painting lipstick on your pig.

Gavin Newsom is in violation of the law.

Mayor Gavin Newsom has violated provisions of the California Public Records Act. Newsom was requested to reveal letters and emails between his office and Carmen Policy. He has decided not to respond. Now, we see that Newsom has asked Solem and Associates, which represents card rooms that fund grassroots groups, to represent Cedar Fair who owns Great America in Santa Clara.

Violation of the Public Records Act can result in grand jury investigation.

Perhaps it's time to change the title of this piece to "Newsom rising" because since Friday Gavin has gained almost 20,000 more votes and 1.5%, he's now at 69.20%. And Prop E? The measure which on election night you stated would surely pass? It's failing. Here's what you said last Tuesday:

"Prop. E, the question time measure where Newsom invested all his political capital trying to defeat, could still go either way: 48.7 percent say yes and 51.3 percent no. That will be a big test of whether Newsom has any political pull at all."

Guess the mayor still has some political pull, huh? Poor Chris Daly must really be feeling the pain from this stinging slapdown from San Francisco's voters.

Marc, MUNI's performance is the culmination of decades of mismanagement and neglect, not Newsom's inattention. And by the same token, implementing long-term solutions cannot and should not be Newsom's job alone. Rather, it requires the commitment of the majority of the city's leaders.

But given the political balkanization that usually results from cynical parlour games such as Prop E, we shouldn't expect the city's so-called leaders to begin working together anytime soon. As a result, you should expect the big issues such as mass transit, housing, and homelessness to remain as they are.

And that stagnation isn't Newsom's fault. Rather, it is the fault of all those who think that having the argument over our problems is more important than finding solutions to them. An inability to compromise usually marks the death knell for a healthy democracy.

"An inability to compromise usually marks the death knell for a healthy democracy."

Sure, Jeff -- but Gavin Newsom desn't even seem to get the seriousness of the problems we're facing. San Francisco needs to profoundly change its housing policy if we're going to survive as a diverse and progressive city -- and Newsom is acting as if it's just another minor nagging policy issue. I'll argue solutions in good faith with anyone who is at least willing to accept the problem.

Jeff, actually in the late 1990s, $500,000,000 in new rolling stock was purchased for the MUNI--a complete and total replacement of all vehicles. We were told that that alone would bump up on-time performance on the MUNI. The system was unable to reach the level Newsom promised us on his much vaunted Prop E. All the while, Newsom was either a Supervisor or Mayor, in the unique position to make a difference. But, as usual, Newsom let it rest at a press conference and allowed the vital system to wane. Now, those vehicles are nearing the mid point in their useful lifespans, and the maint costs are going to be coming in strong.

NYC enjoys a mulitiplier effect to its economy due to efficiencies the subway provides. In SF, MUNI probably drains from the economy because it is so unreliable.

For 9 years, the MUNI has been the complete and exclusive province of the Mayor. Newsom has nobody to blame for poor MUNI service but himself and the ineffective MTA Board of Directors Newsom has appointed.

Only a chickenshit mayor, one who has never been held accountable to take responsibility in his life would blame others for his own failures after serving a full term. And if you think the TEP is going to be your silver bullet...