What the mayoral polls mean


We've seen a lot of polls on the mayor's race, and they're all pretty similar to the one the Examiner reported today: Ed Lee has about 30 percent of the vote, and everyone else is in a big, undifferentiated pack way back in the single digits. A couple of thoughts to put this in perspective:

One: All of these polls have a margin of error; a poll of 500 voters, like this one, has an MOE of at least +/- 5 percent. Which means that Lee has somewhere between about 25% and 35% of the vote. The rest of them? They're all effectively tied. Yee and Herrera at 7 percent and Avalos at 5 percent is a statistical dead heat.

Two: What a poll like this shows, among other things, is that 70 percent of the voters are not supporting the incumbent right now. About as many are undecided as are supporting Lee. That's not a whopping show of support for the front-runner.

Three: On the other hand, nobody else in the race is even close to Lee at this point, and he's far enough ahead that he will be hard to catch -- unless either (a) one of the other candidates catches fire, comes up with a campaign that really takes off and pulls away from the pack, or (b) the other candidates attack Lee enough, and the attacks are effective enough, to bring his numbers down significantly.

Four: There's never been a ranked-choice vote for mayor, so nobody knows exactly how it will play out.

I don't buy the line that Adachi is a "long shot" -- not any more than anyone else. In fact, for better or for worse (and it cuts both ways) he's better positioned than most of the candidates to get votes from both the right and the left. If I were running Adachi's campaign, I'd be sending him out to the west side of town to tell everyone he was the only candidate tough enough to stand up to those damn city employee unions -- then I'd be going to the east side of town and saying he was the only candidate who could stand up to the cops. Tell the conservatives that pension reform is about the greedy bureaucrats; tell the progressives that it's about the greedy cops and firefighters. Wear a nice silk suit and look like a manager out west; take the tie off and talk about cops breaking into SRO rooms on the east. And with Ed Lee as an incumbent who supports a more modest pension reform plan, Adachi can run against City Hall wherever he goes.

I'm not saying he's going to win, or even that he's the number one challenger, but he did get 190,000 votes the last time he ran. And he can raise money. So he's going to be a factor in the race.

What I'm waiting for is the breakout issue, the line that takes, say, John Avalos into striking range of Lee (at which point, he can start collecting "anyone but Ed" votes from the other candidates). Remember Harris Wofford, who was given absolutely zero chance of retaining his U.S. Senate seat in November, 1991? Wofford, who had been appointed that spring, was a virutal unknown (and something of a nerd) who was facing the slick and popular former Govenor Dick Thornburgh. Wofford's campaign came up with a single-issue line that caught Thornburgh by surprise: "If every criminal has the right to a lawyer," he asked in campaign ads, "then why doesn't every sick person have the right to a doctor?" That  slogan, and that issue, brought him from about 30 points behind to a ten-point victory.

What's going to catch the San Francisco public's attention over the next two months? I don't know. Here's my suggestion:

"If San Francisco has 14 billionaires, why can't we afford to buy pencils for the public schools?"



Lee has more than four times his nearest rival, and the MOE is as likely to understate that lead as overstate it. Add in the advantages of incumbencies and the fact that he offends relatively few people, few would bet against him.

Your advice to Adachi is understandable but you're effectively advising him to be two-faced. If Adachi tries to appear conservative to one group and liberal to the other, don't you think people will start to point that out and call him a hypocrite, at best, and a liar, at worst?

In fact, Adachi's biggest problem is the fuzziness over his identity. Is he a closet liberal putting on a moderate face to get elected? Or has he actually had a "lightbulb moment" and realizes that it's the municipality's spending that is out of control?

If he wishes to be seen as a credible and consistent leader, then he crucially needs to define who he is. Can I trust him to normalize the pensions and health benefits of city workers? Can I trust him to be tough on criminals not cops? Does he have specific ideas and measures to attract business and jobs to the City? And has he matured beyond some of the more liberal follies of his youth?

We should be told.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 1:45 pm

I wouldn't characterize a recognition of out-of-control City spending on employee benefits as a "light-bulb" moment. The reality is, with the exception of Adachi, the City's leaders knew the problem but are afraid of the City's unions. Adachi knew he'd be demonized taking on the problem and he was...

Redmond failed to point out that that poll he references polled voters beginning the Sunday morning after the Friday afternoon Adachi got in. Many didn't even know he was running when polled.

Lee is the favorite and I believe, in part for the reasons Redmond cited, Adachi is the only one with the potential to bring him down. The dynamics could easily change. You also have the mano a mano pension battle

We have read nothing about Lee's tenure as DPW head and City Admin- maybe we will. He certainly wasn't filling potholes.

There were some pretty corrupt behind the scenes dealing in the City Family pension plan relative to Adachi - maybe some of that stuff will come out as well

Posted by Guest on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 3:21 pm

Could the other candidates not link Ed Lee to Rose Pak?

Posted by Concerned on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 2:24 pm

Thanks, Tim Redmond, for you post above. Some responses follow.

You say:

“nobody else in the race is even close to Lee at this point.”

Right you are. It’s Ed Lee’s race to lose at this point.

You say:

“unless either (a) one of the other candidates catches fire.”

Yeah, sure, and the sun will rise in the West tomorrow.

You say:

“or (b) the other candidates attack Lee enough.”

Won’t work. The voters are tired of negative campaigns by losers.

You say:

“There's never been a ranked-choice vote for mayor, so nobody knows exactly how it will play out.”

We do know, though, that no incumbent in SF has ever lost under ranked-choice voting.

You say:

“I don't buy the line that Adachi is a ‘long shot’ -- not any more than anyone else. In fact, for better or for worse (and it cuts both ways) he's better positioned than most…”

Jeff Adachi is hated with a passion, not just disliked, by unions, the police, and fire-fighters. It will be very hard for someone who is so divisive to win in a city-wide race.

You say:

“I'd be sending him out to the west side of town to tell everyone he was the only candidate tough enough to stand up to those damn city employee unions –“

The Westsiders will ask him about his stand on law enforcement, which will kill him in their eyes.

You say:

“then I'd be going to the east side of town and saying he was the only candidate who could stand up to the cops.”

The progressives will accuse him of being a tool of capitalists.

He’s going to get blasted hard by someone wherever he goes.

You say:

“with Ed Lee as an incumbent who supports a more modest pension reform plan, Adachi can run against City Hall wherever he goes.”

The voters will prefer a safe, plodding centrist to a divisive maverick.

You say:

“he [Jeff Adachi] did get 190,000 votes the last time he ran.”

That was for public defender. He’s ideally suited to be a public defender. And that’s why he’s so poorly suited to be mayor.

You say:

“What I'm waiting for is the breakout issue, the line that takes, say, John Avalos into striking range of Lee…”

You sound like Christians waiting for the Second Coming.

Enjoy your belief system!

You say:

“Remember Harris Wofford, who was given absolutely zero chance of retaining his U.S. Senate seat in November, 1991?”

Ahem, Wofford was the incumbent.

You say:

“What's going to catch the San Francisco public's attention over the next two months? I don't know. Here's my suggestion: ‘If San Francisco has 14 billionaires, why can't we afford to buy pencils for the public schools?’”

Not a good idea. The obvious response will be:

SF would be able to tackle its super rich if its progressives weren’t so stoned, drunk, and generally dysfunctional.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 4:03 pm

Tim and Guest,

Guest, it's hardly two-faced to emphasize your position on an issue that most closely resonates with the demographic you're addressing. Redmond's right, that Jeff should talk about birthing fiscally responsible Pension Reform, but all over town, not just the West side. Talk up Police Reform everywhere too. There's no inconsistency there at all.

The Guardian's biggest sin here is giving credibility to a bunch of rigged polls. They weren't rigged you say? Let's see the complete instrument then. All of the questions. Only 10 years or so back no reputable editor would publish the results of a poll without the entire instrument. The things would take up an entire page of a major newspaper. Now the pollsters say they won't release them because they're, "proprietary information" which is just double-talk that they're rigged. You've been blithely running the results of polls fed to you by the POA and Willie Brown as though they're legitimate.

Adachi owns Pension Reform and Police Reform. That will be enough.

And Guest, what exactly were Adachi's, "liberal follies"? Would that be when he took down the entire Burton/Brown machine to win the the Public Defender's Office?

Jeff's smashed the machine in City-wide elections before and will again.

Giants just getting positioned to make their move.


Posted by h. brown on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 4:46 pm

"Now the pollsters say they won't release them because they're, "proprietary information" which is just double-talk that they're rigged."

Thanks for making this important point.

Cooked polls not withstanding, Adachi is likely to roast Ed Lee's Family Goose.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 5:21 pm

"If San Francisco has 14 billionaires, why can't we afford to buy pencils for the public schools?"

Well let's look at a few of those billionaires. One that passed away about a year ago was Don Fisher. Don Fisher, a Republican billionaire who founded The Gap clothing chain, was a strong funder of the Republican Party nationally (SF's own David Koch, the rightwing billionaire who with his brother is pouring millions into Republican campaigns nationally).

Don Fisher also was a founder of the City Fields Foundation (CFF). Now that he's passed away, it's being run by his three billionaire sons.

Don Fisher's City Fields Foundation was (and is) going around to public grass areas in SF (playgrounds, sports fields, Dolores Park, GG Park, etc) and with the strong backing of then-Mayor Gavin Newsom and Newsom's Rec & Parks General Managers, is removing the natural grass and soil and replacing it with artificial turf placed on top of lots of ground-up tires (2 to 3 pounds per sqare foot).

What does this have to do with public schools? Lots in fact. See this is really a "privatize public assets" story that the Fisher family's CFF is playing (with the help of former mayor Newsom and Phil Ginsburg, the man Newsom appointed as R&P General Manager).

When you replace grass with artificial turf, guess what? You no longer need gardeners who happen to be unionized public workers. And you can rent out the land so that, in effect, the land becomes equivalent to privately-owned land that the public no longer has access to (unless they purchase an expensive permit).

It's important to know that Mayor Newsom apparently put out the message when he was mayor that he wanted to privatize as much as City govt as was realistically possible. That's why he was working so closely with Don Fisher, a stauch and highly partisan Republican and, like I said, a big funder of the Republican Party nationally.

To give you some idea of how close Newsom could be to Republican hacks, take a look at this youtube video when he was on Faux's Bill O'Reilly show.


Notice a few of the lines Newsom says to O'Reilly:
"Actually I watch you every night." (get a friggin life Newsom)
"Either you're becoming more moderate or I'm becoming more moderate" (translation: "I find myself agreeing more and more with you Bill")
"People just distrust big government."
"I think there's a populist upheaval happening in this nation. I think we reject the Tea Party populism at our own peril as Democrats. There's extreme elements [in the TP] but they're rightly being shown the door [by the TP leaders]." (translation: "I think overall the TP is really a moderate movement since they've banished the extreme elements and overall they're making some good points.")
In response to O'Reilly saying 1) California has a $20 billion deficit, 2) Sacramento is dominated by liberals, what does Newsom say? nothing, just nods his head in agreement.
In response to O'Reilly saying businesses are fleeing Cal because of liberal policies, Newsom kinda shrugs as if to say, "yeah, okay."
After O'Reilly goes on a long rant about how bad liberal govt is in SF and Cal, the first words outta Newsom's mouth is, "I don't disagree fundamentally though I do suggest ..."
And after another long O'Reilly rant about how bad SF is, Newsom essentially agrees with him but defends himself by saying, "but we did Care Not Cash which reduced welfare spending by 83% and ...."
Then at the conclusion of the interview when O'Reilly says he's gonna have to move out there to fix Cal and SF, here's Newsom's response: "we may need you Bill."

So that gives you some idea of just how close Newsom really is to the Republican Party and its ideology. And who did he go see when he was back in DC when Obama was congratulating the Giants for the World Series win? Why it was those nice folks at the US Chamber of Congress - the ones who heavily funded the tea party candidates in the 2010 election and who have fought anything the Obama admin has done. They are basically a Republican Party major funder - and I mean MAJOR! That's the group Newsom was meeting with when he was in DC.

I did the above to give you some idea why the Republican billionaire Don Fisher and his City Fields Foundation was able to have so much influence with former mayor Newsom and Newsom's Rec and Park General Managers (including the present one, Phil Ginsburg).

Fisher's intentions had nothing to do with improving fields for the children of SF. It was part of a rightwing, anti-government, anti-union agenda by 1) making it so union gardeners would no longer be needed (this was also why all the park directors were laid off), and 2) effectively shutting off large public grass areas from the public except to those who are willing and able to pay for expensive permits (as if it was private land). In essence, it's all about privatizing public assets, which is something Don Fisher has always been for.

Fisher's City Fields Foundation alliance with R&P's Ginsburg (and earlier R&P GMs) was also a way to get SF's govt to give out multi-million dollar contracts to private parties to "privatize" these spaces (instead of using union labor).

For example, in SF's crown jewel, Golden Gate Park, R&P's Phil Ginsburg is trying to overcome growing opposition to his (and the City Fields Foundation's) plan to remove 7 acres of grass there and replace it with artificial turf and over 300 tons of ground-up tires. The company that gets that contract gets $12 million (and probably a lot more) from the City of SF (actually from present and future SF taxpayers).

And who apparently gets to pick the company that gets that contract? The City of SF of course, right? Nope, The City Fields Foundation gets to pick who gets that contract - as if they were the owners of Golden Gate Park (they are if Newsom and Ginsburg have anything to do with it).

And SF's other big famous billionaire, Warren Hellman, apparently ripped into Joanna Rees to her face because Rees said she was against the plan to replace 7 acres of grass in GG Park with artificial turf. Sounds like Mr. "whatta great guy because he puts on a bluegrass festival" Hellman has an agenda not all that different from the Fisher family who he is probably is very close to.

So don't be expecting the SF billionaires to be supporting public schools or public unions or public spaces. They want to privatize all three. There's a reason they freely admit they are hardcore Republicans (Fisher, when he was alive, and Hellman).

That's why we need to fight hard to defeat the Fisher family's plan to, in essence, "privatize" the Beach Chalet soccer fields in Golden Gate Park (and dump 300 tons of petroleum-based ground-up tires there).

Tell your supervisor (they will be voting on the EIR for the project, which is being done now and will be finished shortly, in about 6 months) that you are very much against Fisher and R&P's Ginsburg's plan to remove 7 acres of grass at the Beach Chalet soccer fields in Golden Gate Park. Here's their email addresses and phone numbers. And be sure to contact Sup. Eric Mar - the word I've heard is that a lot of the supes will vote according to how he votes because his district (Richmond District) is adjacent to it.

Eric.L.Mar@sfgov.org 554-7410
Mark.Farrell@sfgov.org 554-7752
David.Chiu@sfgov.org 554-7450
Carmen.Chu@sfgov.org 554-7460
Ross.Mirkarimi@sfgov.org 554-7630
Jane.Kim@sfgov.org 554-7970
Sean.Elsbernd@sfgov.org 554-6516
Scott.Wiener@sfgov.org 554-6968
David.Campos@sfgov.org 554-5144
Malia.Cohen@sfgov.org 554-7670
John.Avalos@sfgov.org 554-6975

San Francisco unions and their supporters should be working against this (and talking to the supes telling them to not let the Fisher family’s City Fields Foundation replace the grass in GG Park) because it's really an anti-union project and part of an anti-union agenda by the late Don Fisher (with crucial help from Gavin Newsom and his appointee, R&P General Manager Phl Ginsburg).

Don't need union gardeners to care for the living grass if there's no more grass there, just dead plastic turf on top of hundreds of tons of tiny tire particles.

Posted by Bill on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 5:33 pm

Most conservatives will view him as being too "soft" on crime. And by villifying public workers, he's done a bang up job of pissing off progressives.

And look at who's backing him. So far, venture capitalist Michael Moritz and Basic American Foods heir George Hume, his biggest backers, have each contributed $250,000 for "Son of B". The Hume family is notorious for its union busting tactics~

“According to the Citizenship Project, a community-based organization founded by Mexican immigrants and unionists in Salinas, and DataCenter's ImpactResearch Team, Hume and his family have contributed heavily to dozens of right-wing causes and candidates” [...]

"Company founder Jaquelin Hume, a stalwart of San Francisco's Republican Party who died in 1991, helped create the highly-developed conservative infrastructure of think tanks, policy institutes and foundations which perpetuate the right-wing revolution of the 1990s. Today Hume's son William carries on the family's political legacy, providing the financial seed money for many of the state's most notorious right-wing "wedge" initiatives, political campaigns and candidates."
~David Bacon and Bill Berkowitz, "Building a Rightwing Empire on Dried Garlic and a Busted Union"


As I've already pointed out, Michael Moritz has contributed to the campaigns of John Kasich, the notorious union-busting governor from Ohio, and Max Baucus who sank the public option in Obama's health care measure. With funders like these (yikes!), I can't wait to see who's backing Adachi's campaign for mayor.

I'm afraid the only folks rooting for Adachi are the right-wing think tanks who dreamed up this "pension reform" scheme (as a way to bust the unions) long before it ever occurred to Adachi that this could be his ticket to Room 200.

Posted by Lisa on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 6:06 pm

He never had any intention of fighting for it - it was always going to be sacrificed.

Get your facts straight.

Posted by Right on Sister Snapples on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 7:09 pm

Lisa, I just read your piece and the history you laid out about Michael Moritz. So I thought I'd put him and Fisher in Google and see if anything turned up. I found this from 2008 when Michael Bloomberg was thinking of running for Prez.


"BusinessWeek has learned that New York’s billionaire mayor was guest of honor at a dinner last summer at the home of private equity baron Sandy Robertson, of Francisco Partners. Attendees included Google CEO Sergey Brin, Salesforce.com’s Marc Benioff, venture capitalist Michael Moritz from Sequoia Partners and Bob Fisher, the CEO of the Gap."

That would be Bob Fisher also of the City Fields Foundation (and son of Don Fisher). So he apparently travels in the same circles of anti-union Republican billionaires.

Then I decided to put in "union" and "Don Fisher" and found the gold mine I was looking for and that basically proves the whole reason Don Fisher started the City Fields Foundation was to cripple San Francisco's public unions (it would have eliminated them as well as private-sector unions if it could).

Here's the link (an SF Weekly blog written by a Matt Smith that was posted right after Don Fisher died):


The excerpt below reveals what the City Fields Foundation (and its henchman, R&P's Phil Ginsburg) is all about:

*** start of excerpt ***

(regarding what Don Fisher wrote in his autobiography) He expresses his contempt for local politicians who aren't in his pocket, his loathing for labor unions, an eagerness to rid California of public schools, a cynical attitude toward his own philanthropy and his role as a patron of the arts, and an extraordinary regard for himself.

In San Francisco, parents anguish annually as the city announces seemingly every year that it must close a handful of neighborhood public schools. It's often reported that the closures occur because families are exiting San Francisco. But that's not the whole story. Public schools are actually losing a portion of their students to charter schools, which a Fisher-backed law says get to obtain facilities from public schools.

Fisher provides the back story. He spent millions of dollars backing charter schools such as the for-profit Edison Schools, and the nonprofit KIPP schools.

"Charter schools... were not unionized. So they could hire the best teachers and fire the worst ones, which brought a high level of accountability," he writes. In 2000, Fisher and other charter school backers recognized a need to obtain facilities for charter schools.

He writes:

(start of Fisher's own words)

In order to gain a toehold that would enable us to secure public school facilities, we had to get financially involved in supporting favorable political issues, like California's Proposition 39. This issue, which passed in 2000, reduced the supermajority in bond issues from 66 to 55 percent of the vote and was strongly backed by the California Timber Association Union.

But that wasn't the real issue for us.

A charter school bill was attached to the proposition that required a public school to give a portion of their facility to a charter school if the charter school could get a minimum of 80 students to sign up with it. A group of us joined with the unions supporting Proposition 39 because of the charter school language included in the ballot initiative.

So if a public school had four hundred students, and a charter school could sign up eighty kids to attend that school, the school district had to give the charter school 20 percent of its facility. If you could sign up another eighty kids the following year, you'd be given 40 percent of the facility. Eventually, if you could sign up all the four hundred students, you had the entire facility for the charter school.

(end of Fisher's own words & continuation of excerpt from blog)

Over the years, Fisher was the target of protesters who objected to working conditions in overseas factories supplying The Gap. Fisher, his autobiography tells us, is a longtime union buster, who's worked hard to make it easier to move U.S. manufacturing jobs offshore.

**** end of excerpt ***

So Don Fisher was vehemently anti-union, anti-public schools, and probably vehemently anti-public anything. Like I said, San Francisco's own David (or Charles) Koch.

The City Fields Foundation is nothing but a front for destroying San Francisco's public unions just like he was using an initiative for charter schools to destroy the public schools.

San Francisco's public unions (and private sector unions since he didn't like them either) should be targeting any San Francisco supervisor who cozies up to the City Fields Foundation and their projects to remove grass from our public parks and public land because the City Fields Foundation is one of their biggest enemies.

They should also be pushing to get rid of R&P's Phil Ginsburg removed because Ginburg is the one doing the dirty work of this anti-union front group.

Posted by Bill on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 7:41 pm

Good sleuthing :-) I agree with you that we need to confront every one of these pols who has cozied up with these billionaires with their reactionary think tanks and foundations. We (progressives) have to wake up to the fact that there is an entire network of these groups that has been built up over the past 30 years while we were asleep at the wheel. Unfortunately, the City Fields Foundation is just one of dozens of conservative groups working to subvert democracy and dismantle public institutions at every level. The charter school movement, which is deeply worrying, is just one example. As a teacher, I am extremely concerned by this assault on free, public education for every child. But this is just one pillar of the reactionary agenda they have in store for us if we don't wake up and fight back.

Progressives need to be alert to the fact that conservative groups and think tanks have set their sights on our cities. You can see the results here in SF with the increasing privatization of our public spaces and institutions. (h. Brown mentioned the threat to our beautiful bay as just one example). Billionaires are buying off our politicians and privatizing public spaces at an alarming rate. That is why I am adamantly opposed to Adachi's measure. The backers of this initiative know that if they succeed in undermining the unions here, they can succeed anywhere. Whatever you think of unions, they represent the last stronghold of power that can stand up to the corporate and financial elites.

IMHO, the Adachi campaign serves as a diversion to the real threat which his backers represent. Like Obama, Adachi is the so-called "progressive poster boy" who makes it okay to demand deficit reductions instead of needed stimulus, all the while enabling the plunderers and the great "Saqueo" of our cities. (Naomi Klein's term for the sacking of the public sphere.) It is nothing less than an assault on urban democracy. And San Francisco is ground zero.

Here's a useful primer on these right wing groups and think tanks from our compas in San Diego. I urge everyone to read it so that you understand what we're up against~


Posted by Lisa on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 4:37 pm

that I really appreciate the info on Fisher. I was aware of his sweat shop operation, but the new stuff you came up with is quite interesting. Thanks :-)

Posted by Lisa on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 6:09 pm

Credit where due,

Aaron Peskin when the first Fisher astro-turf for grass replacement field went in ... there was a bit of a tussle at the BOS on the issue so Peskin put a clause in the legislation that says that the Fishers don't have to go back to the Board for individual projects. They just need the approval of whomever is the Park and Rec boss. Challenging EIR's before what has essentially become a conservative majority BOS will be useless.

It's much worse. Ed Lee and the BOS are bragging about giving away huge chunks of our precious Bay front for 66 years and evicting 80 long-time businesses with hundreds of employees in the process. Cause it's for a billionaire (Larry Ellison) and lordy lordy does the BOS love billionaires.

What to do?

Only one candidate with a real chance of winning will stand up to anyone and always has and that's Jeff Adachi.

Adachi for Mayor!

Giants and Cubs 0-0 in bottom of 1st.


Posted by h. brown on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 6:27 pm


With the very same people arrayed against him last year (they spent 1.5 million blackening his name) ... against same troops last year Jeff barely lost on his Pension Reform measure (cause Herrera butchered the ballot language) ... so Adachi get's 199,000 votes on the other side of the ballot cause voters have learned to love that name. I didn't know there were that many billionaires in SF.

Giants and Cubs 0-0 top of second.


Posted by h. brown on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 6:35 pm


No doubt about it, Jeff is a great public defender. That's why the voters have supported him time and again (and the fact that voters tend to favor incumbents). But your hope that this will somehow translate into support for Adachi's mayoral campaign is a stretch. The position of mayor is THE most important job in the city. Those folks who don't ordinarily pay attention to the PD's or DA's race often have a keen interest in the candidate who could end up in room 200. So, they are going to be scrutinizing the candidates much more closely. Frankly, I just don't see where Adachi's base is. But I suppose with IRV anything could happen.

Ah, but I would love to be among these "billionaires" you speak of. I would gladly cast my vote for Adachi to remain right where he is -- as our very capable PD. But I suppose Matt G. has his eye on that job ;-)


Posted by Lisa on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 5:15 pm

Didn't h brown predict that Krissy Keefer would pull a rabbit out of the hat and be elected to Congress against Nancy Pelosi?

More generally, isn't it true that the more that h brown effuses about a candidate, the more likely he or she is to lose?

Does anybody in the city have a worse record of predictions?

Posted by Arthur Evans on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 6:50 pm

this quote from an above comment is important:

"They should also be pushing to get rid of R&P's Phil Ginsburg removed because Ginburg is the one doing the dirty work of this anti-union front group."

We really should be looking at who might deliver the public and our parks from the itchy money grubbing hands of Phil Ginsburg and Mark Buell.

Is it possible to pin down some of the candidates on this?
We know that Ed Lee is 100% for the sell off of our public parks to the highest bidder, so that's one leech wrangler no one should consider for mayor.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 8:30 pm

"""And look at who's backing him. So far, venture capitalist Michael Moritz and Basic American Foods heir George Hume, his biggest backers, have each contributed $250,000 for "Son of B". The Hume family is notorious for its union busting tactics."""

Here's another one...

The SEIU paid Nathan Ballard (PR mouthpiece for UnionCarbide in its fight to stop any payments to poisoned victims of the Bhopal disaster in India, and a former shill for Gavin Newsom) to spread lies about Prop B last year.


The SEIU is a defender of Union Carbide against poisoned Indian peasants, and a Gavin Newsom supporter.

That's your logic, not mine...

Posted by Barton on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 9:04 pm

massive democrat giver and certain leftist cause giver, who got his money from the union busting Hormel outfit.

Posted by meatlock on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 10:50 pm

Get real. You really think Ballard is the one pulling the strings of SEIU? Moritz and Hume are the ones funding Adachi's campaigns. Logic dictates that the people with the cash are the ones with the power, not the hired hands like Ballard. . .

Posted by Guest on Sep. 01, 2011 @ 7:18 pm

are the Mayor and the BOS who are putting regressive taxes on the poor on the ballot to pay for rising benefit costs.

If Adachi didn't have any funders, we would not even have Prop C and we certainly would see more taxes and fee increases on the poor.

Thank you funders of Jeff Adachi.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 01, 2011 @ 8:22 pm

I have stopped taking the "villifying public employees" crowd seriously.

USA Blackwater is also on Ballard's client list should there be a need to pile on.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 30, 2011 @ 10:25 pm

Yes, Blackwater USA should be charged with war crimes.

Therefore, Nathan Ballard, its PR puppet, is also a war criminal.

Therefore, the SEIU, which has also hired Ballard as a PR jerk-talker, is a war criminal, too.

Socratic logix

Posted by Barton on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 8:43 am

The self-immolation of SF progressives, thanks to The Guardian's current attack on Leland Yee, is good news for Dennis Herrera.

According to the latest poll, Herrera and Yee were tied for second place after Ed Lee. Yee will now lose some ground as a result of Tim Redmond's pounding of him.

Which provides Herrera with an opening. He needs to seize the opportunity by casting himself as a positive problem-solver with professional expertise in dealing with city affairs.

Essentially, Herrera can market himself as Ed Lee, but without all of Lee's baggage. Such a pitch will appeal to voters, especially as they watch the progressives go nuclear on each other.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Aug. 31, 2011 @ 10:08 am

I just read this article and wow -- Redmond must be prescient! And maybe Adachi is following his advice. Adachi came to the Richmond Rec Center on Monday night, made a good showing (as did a number of other candidates -- including Richmond district resident JOANNA REES, who is very smart and very well=spoken). He was wearing and great suit and tie. He said he would NOT allow fake turf in GGPark or 60-ft stadium lighting (both proposed by Rec&Park's slimy Phil Ginsburg for the soccer fields...). And on Wednesday, the Richmond Reform Democratic Club totally did NOT follow Demo clubs around the city, bu tendorsed Adachi as their #1 pick for mayor, with Chiu second, Ting third. (All three did very well in the forum, which asked tough, focused questions.)

Posted by Guest Wild west-sider on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 6:32 pm

Related articles

  • The Rise of Candidate X

    The absolutely true story of how a complete unknown rocketed from political obscurity, electrified the city, tackled real problems, and beat Ed Lee in 2015. 

  • The selling of Ed Lee

    How a career bureaucrat became interim mayor and blossomed into a full-blown politician

  • Guardian forum: Everybody loves public power