93 percent of the votes are in

|
(22)

And it doesn't look good for anyone except Ed Lee.

John Avalos has done really well -- he's in solid second place, almost 10,000 votes ahead of Dennis Herrera, who is in third. But he's also 15,000 votes behind Lee -- and that margin is entirely the absentee vote. Lee was 20,000 votes ahead in the absentees; if Avalos had been able to stay close in the early-vote race, he'd be very competitive right now. But it's going to be hard for him, or anyone else, to make up the vote difference.

Too early to tell for sure -- there could be a strong "anyone but Ed" vote that shows up in the second-place selections. But it would have to be far stronger than the polls have shown so far.

It looks tonight as if Lee has a commanding lead. He did what he had to do -- he had an effective absentee effort that got his votes out and in the bank. If he wins in the RCV calculation and become the next mayor, that will be the deciding factor.

The sheriff's race is a very different story. It's going to be close -- but Mirkarimi is looking very strong. He's not only in first place -- he's getting almost 50 percent of the election-day vote.

The DA's race is tighening a bit -- but Gascon is still 20 points ahead at 42 percent and needs only a few seconds from the other three to make it over the top.

 

 

Comments

the fat Sister of Perpetual Indulgence sings, right? Well, she hasn't sung her song yet, so don't bring me no bad news about this election going to Willie and Rose's puppet. Totally depressing to think what four years of Ed Lee and Steve Kawa leading the city means.

Posted by MPetrelis on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 10:30 pm

You guys talk about election days votes like they are the ones that truly matter. Outside of alternative reality land, all votes count

Posted by Guest on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 11:42 pm

Earlier in the night, John Arntz said that the overall turnout so far was 16% (from early absentees). At the same time, M&R reported that 80% of early absentees from Chinatown were already in! That's just bullshit. It's a brazen ballot-stuffing operation that puts third world banana republics to shame.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 12:45 am

I was wondering who the first person would be to say that and, as usual, Greg doesn't disappoint.

The left always loses because it is too fragmented. But whining each time does seem to be a unifying reaction. Can't you just accept that, at least for a city-wide election, the people quite simply do not want a very Progressive Mayor?

Better get back to your encampment now. I think it's your turn to clean up all the poop.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 6:23 am

It's marinated in corporate cash, and even that's not enough without a healthy dose of voter fraud. And you wonder why the turnout is so low? I'll tell you why -it's because people are disillusioned that the political system can provide any real change, so they're voting with their feet. Do you really think that kind of a turnout disparity is legit?

Posted by Greg on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 8:43 am

Greg, at the top of the ticket was a progressive game changer who should have energized all these voters you think are so upset. He should have got out the vote, if indeed he actually reflected the views of the people you think so little of.

There's really no wrong answer here with the true believers. If you win the people have seen through the bullshit, if you lose the people are bitter or fooled.

...and your complaint about racial politics around Lee, from an SF progressive?

hilarious bitterness.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 9:27 am

Actually, I never thought the Avalos campaign was all that strong. I voted for him, of course, but it never felt like it was running on all cylinders. Maybe on the last week after voters started tuning in, but by then it was too late.

Look, you can make all the snide noises you want (har!), but I'm not really interested in that pissing contest.

The undeniable truth is that voter turnout was ridiculously low. Why is that? Is it because people are basically content? I don't think so. Clearly there is a lot of discontent. I think that it's because all those discontented people don't see politics as a solution to their problems.

Another basic fact is that there was a huge, gaping disparity in turnout between some areas where the Lee/Brown/Pak machine had a lot of operational strength, and the rest of the city. Those who are peddling the explanation that well, this is because those folks were just so enthusiastic about Ed Lee, are either fools or knaves. Particularly in light of *documented* ballot stuffing caught on video! I mean how much more evidence do you need?

Posted by Greg on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 10:06 am

Any of these disaffected people should have been ecstatic about Avalos in your world, and should have turned out to vote for him and have helped carry the ticket.

You are probably right, these people who didn't vote are turned off and don't see these midgets that you love as a solution to their problems, thats because they don't offer them anything. You've answered your own complaint. Avalos spends his time on bag bans, raising taxes on alcyhol, being subservient to his brand of special interests and they see right through his and all the other progressives bullshit.

It comes down to again, the true believers excuse machine,

we won because the people saw through the bullshit
we lost because we were outspent
we lost because of the other sides lies
we won because the other sides corruption

It could never be that your policies do not resonate? That your particular brand of special interest fawning could be seen as just as bad as that of right wing republicans.

You lost because the people that you have claimed are not interested.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 10:47 am

He made zero effort to engage the silent moderate majority, preferring instead to stay "pure" and just hang with his progressive powerbase.

Problem is, that only gets you about 10% in SF, which is not nearly enough to beat an incumbent.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 11:03 am

I have been watching the Avalos operation pretty closely, and they have frankly been busting their asses all over the City, which is why Avalos has done so well. This at the very least, has created a base that can help us take back the Board.

Your and Greg's claims to the contrary are absurd.

Perhaps if you would get up from your keyboards once in a while and actually go out and take -part- in campaigns (and I don't mean hanging out eating Hors d'oeuvre at house parties) you would know the difference between your gossipy fantasies and the very energized and powerful political reality that is now rising in San Francisco.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 11:40 am

The data I've seen has him around 10-11, slightly ahead of the other also-ran's.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 12:08 pm

As I said to you on another thread:

So, you are posting here making comments about the election without actually consulting... the... vote count...

You have to be the most moronic addicted troll in history. You can't even take 60 seconds from typing bullshit, to leave this site and go to the SF Elections Department site to see what is actually happening in real life.

Unreal.

You need to see a therapist.

Posted by Aragorn on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 12:45 pm

I doubt Avalos got many #2 or #3 picks. He's too polarizing.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 12:50 pm

Greg claims that the disaffected are upset about the politics as usual, the claimed anti-politics as usual candidate is Avalos. He got beat, all that's left is to quibble over the %points.

The greg logic

The anti politics as usual candidate Avalos didn't resonate with the disaffected, because this was another politics as usual election. That purity according to our progressives should have made Avalos a world beater.

People are upset with the political class according to our progressives, but the person who claims to not be a member of the political class, a person who claims to represent the 99%, the candidate who should be gathering up the angry many according to our progressives, the person who's populism should rush him to the top of the pissed off voter heap... that person lost in a landslide because of the purity of what greg thinks makes a winning candidate.

Progressives just offer bitter excuses as to why they lost. It happens to AM radio shouters and FOX news screamers when it happens to them too.

We are all just too stupid to know whats good for us.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 12:37 pm

This election helped show the power of incumbency. Not much more. I don't agree with Chris Daly too much about politics, but he was absolutely right that Ed Lee's touchdown drive started near the goal line with the worse fumble possible. I'm sure David Chiu has thought about his decision to support Ed Lee. But I'm not sure if Eric Mar or Jane Kim would have changed their support and vote, and I respect both of their opinions on many issues.

It appears Avalos will end up with close to 20% of the votes. In a crowded race in a complex (and very wealthy) city with numerous important voting groups, it's a good showing. It gives John a lot of political credibility and is someone the Lee administration will want on their side for any controversial issues that arise. Being involved in those initial meetings when important policy decisions are being made is the essence of political power. Avalos helped himself and the progressive groups he represents be part of that decision-makign process with yesterday's voting results. It was a solid effort and he's a strong representative for progessive groups, just as Aaron Peskin, David Campos, Matt Gonzalez and (at times) even Chris Daly are smart and effective representatives for progressive's aspirations.

I know this website is a place where some of the most autoritarian progressives like to tell us and politicians how terrible we are for our views about anything that they don't agree with, but I consider it an honor (and pleasure) being on the opposite side of the totalitarians (some are even self-described anachists for anyone at home playing the irony game) who love to denigrate and vilify anyone who doesn't confrom to their narrow and rigid viewpoints. As Willie Brown found out after the 2000 supervisor election, the mayor needs to work with other people within The City Family to get anything important accomplished. With the continuing budget shortfalls and increasing economic divisions between the haves and have-nots, the mayor will need to work with John Avalos, David Campos, Jane Kim, Eric Mar, David Chiu and others. DA Gascon, CA Herrera and PD Adachi will also play key consultation and decison-making roles for serious issues that arise. In the PD and CA offices especially, there are dozens of bright, committed employees who have ties to important sub-groups within the city.

It's a dynamic, diverse group that have decent working relationships with one another. As always, it's up to the public to push an agenda with specific legislative changes they want. But that takes real work organizing disparate groups, making compromises, listening, more compromising, and more hard work and listening. It's much easier to go to a chat board and demonize others who are different from us and tell others what to do and how to think. That's where you'll find me since it only takes .025% of the effort compared to actually trying to accomplish a small positive change in the world.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 11:57 am

choices are counted. People either love or hate Avalos.

And remember that he had no competition for the progressive vote. While the moderates were hugely split. So actually it is Lee's numbers that's the real story here - he was way ahead of all the other moderates.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 12:10 pm

Ranked choice is eventually about lesser of evils.

But Avalos' support, in a field of 16 candidates, in the first round will end up being above 20% (after day-of absentee ballots are counted).

That core support doesn't leave even if ranked choice results change (just as Ed Lees 30% won't change either, even if he gains 50% in ranked choice...).

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 12:49 pm

would have put Avalos first, because he was never likely to win. So it was a protest vote, much like you putting Baum first.

As Hall, Dufty, Chui etc drop out, Avalos isn't going to pick up much. While Lee, Adacho, Herrera and Yee will, gradually pushing them past Avalos.

For Avalos, this is as good as it gets. And four out of five rejected not just him but a left-wing agenda..

Posted by Guest on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 1:11 pm

There's nothing mysterious about the mayor election outcome. A short-term incumbent candidate who hadn't been in office long enough to piss off 60% of the voters for one reason or another beat a credible group of challengers in a very complex, fractured city.

The surprising outcome was seeing how little citywide support most of the candidates received. With 10 credible candidates running, receiving less than 5% of 1st round votes indicates there were quite a few fantasy campaigns with candidates who must either like to read about themselves in the paper or who have borderline narcissism issues.

I respect many of the people associated with Chinatown Development Corp and I'm excited someone from Chinese heritage is an elected mayor of San Francisco, a city with a long history of discrimination against Chinese residents. But starting next week the Lee administration has to work with a large group of other elected officials and city employees to accomplish most of his agenda priorities. Assuming Mirkarimi becomes sheriff next January (and it looks good for him), the mayor could build a lot of immediate goodwill with progressive groups - the 20% who voted for Avalos yesterday - by appointing someone to the D5 seat after serious consultations with important progressive constituencies.

The next 20 years of city/county government will not be much fun. The state is transferring costs and responsibilities to counties without much money to pay for them; pension and retiree healthcare costs continue to climb much faster than inflation; tax receipt growth is sluggish. There will be endles meetings about cuts and outsourcing. There will be lots of campaigning to raise taxes and fees. And there will be continuing demand on politicians for more govenment services as more of the Greece/Ireland/Italy/France debt crisis reaches the US.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 1:25 pm

must take into account that over 80% of voters did not pick a "progressive" candidiate but a middle-of-the-road one.

That implies that the D5 appointment should no more be a Marxist than they should be a Republican.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 1:43 pm

Have to agree with 'guests' comment above, "The left always looses because it is too fragmented".
Another contributing factor is well illustrated by M&R's comment in today's cat box liner "Lee...likes to call it 'the city family'. Others call it the 'permanent government' of city department heads, union leaders, non-profit chiefs and city commissioners who manage to survive every change in mayoral administrations"
It ain't easy going up against "La Familia".
Congratulations to John Avalos.
SI SE PUEDE.
GO NINERS.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 10:39 am