Preliminary RCV points to Breed, Crowley

|
(55)

How incredibly strange: District Five, the most left-leaning district in the city, just elected a moderate supervisor who supports the sit-lie law and has the backing of the landlords. District 7, the most conserative district, elected a labor guy who may sometimes be a swing vote.

The preliminary RCV results show London Breed winning in D5 and FX Crowley in D7. The D7 results are close and could change; the D5 results are not. Promoted by landlord money and helped by two billionaires attacking incumbent Christina Olague, Breed is now in a position to move the board to the right.

Comments

Gee, I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the Bay Guardian refused to endorse the incumbent progressive who had the best shot at winning. I mean I would guess that the most progressive paper in SF has a pretty decent readership in the most progressive district. Splitting the progressive vote= moderate supervisor.

Great job guys, you really put aside petty politics for the greater good of of our district . How incredibly strange indeed.

*slow claps

Posted by guest on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 12:07 am

I doubt that the Guardian's refusal to endorse Olague had too much of an impact on D5 voters. In my opinion, the Bay Guardian's influence on who people vote for is vastly overstated.

* * * * * * *

Tim, I don't find Breed's victory to be "incredibly strange" at all. I, and other posters, have been telling you for some time now that D5 is moving towards the center. Your vision of Haight-Ashbury is as antiquated as an 8 track tape of the Grateful Dead.

Posted by snoozers on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 1:35 am

Unfortunately, The City is moving to the right as in conservative/right-wing and it seems to not be able to move there fast enough, especially with that piece of work D8 conservative supervisor whose been running for mayor since he became a supervisor. Forget this "moving towards the center" shit. That's just trying to sanitize or disguise what's really going on.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 2:37 am

Because SF has been so far out to the left that moving towards the center seems like it. Trying hanging out in Texas or the fly-over states- that is actually right-wing/conservative. SF is still pretty far left of center.

Posted by D. Native on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 8:48 am

Only in the comments here could London Breed be called right-wing.

Posted by Hortencia on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 11:01 am

Or perhaps it is that the diverse residents of District 5 actually saw that a young African-American woman who actually grew up in public housing in the District she wanted to lead wasn't as much of a threat to all things progressive as the white liberals at SFBG thought she was...

Posted by HankEssay on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 12:16 am

Unfortunately, Rizzo was the best candidate, but the corporate media goes for the best Willie Brown puppet.

Anyone who has ever spoken to London knows that, while she does not have the intellectual wherewithal to do the job, she absolutely has the contacts with her friends Mohammed Nuru, Willie Brown and Amos Brown who will tell her what to do.

There is nothing "moderate" about this woman or neoliberal thug Scott Wiener who will be her close ally in pillaging the wealth of this district on behalf of the realtors who put her into power!

Posted by Richard on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 12:38 am

I suspect it was all about name ID and for/against Olague. No candidate other than Breed and Olague really became well-known (except maybe Davis when his scandal broke). Breed has a strong personal story; I doubt most voters paid enough attention to realize that she is the candidate supported by landlords.

If there was a runoff, there would be a chance for opponents of London Breed to put together a narrative about her. Without a runoff, if they wanted someone more "progressive" then they needed one clear choice and a message. Instead we had a clusterfuck. I thought Olague would benefit from the clusterfuck but it appears I was wrong. And RCV denied the "progressives" the chance to deliver a clear message about which candidate they wanted.

Posted by D5 Voter on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 12:50 am

IRV should not have "exhausted ballots" to the degree that it does. We should be able to express a preference for every candidate over the one we most dislike; not just the top three.

I suspect that if the 6,000 or so voters who put neither Olague or Breed on their ballots had had more spaces to fill in, most of them would have selected Olague in preference over the Brown protege.

This implementation of IRV still suffers from the problem of too many candidates diluting the support of their natural constituency; a problem which is highlighted in the presence of a focused and moneyed strategy on the part of downtown interests.

We need more democracy, not less.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 7:55 am
Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 8:53 am

No. My point is that our voting system should accurately and efficiently reflect the intent of the electorate.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 9:03 am

electorate is to elect far left candidates. The voters think otherwise.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 12:44 pm

That's the key here. If voters follow the advice of slate-makers who suggested ranking only one or two, they forfeit the chance of a compromise defeating lesser choices.

More rankings is good. But being very clear on advice to voters to use their full rankings is even better.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 08, 2012 @ 6:43 am

The voting system DID reflect the intent of the electorate, and that was to vote London Breed as the D5 Supervisor.

Congratulations Supervisor Breed on your much deserving win.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 08, 2012 @ 3:20 pm

Yes, because electing people because they were 4th or 5th preferences is the way to find excellent leaders.

Three choices is already two too many.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 9:01 am

As a matter of fact, the reality of the old system was the voters often had choose between their second-to-last choice and someone they couldn't stand at all.

What we need a IRV system that allows that process to take place in a single election.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 9:19 am

...but I'd rather have someone in office I'm lukewarm about than someone I can't stand.

Posted by Hortencia on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 9:22 am

Apart from sit-lie, how is Breed actually a "moderate centrist" in terms of the policies she supports? Her stances all seem fairly boilerplate progressive to me.

I try to pay close attention but I never saw SFBG explain this. Genuinely confused here.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 1:03 am

As a Redevelopment Commissioner, London Breed was a constant rubber stamp vote for the rapacious Wall Street developer and sub-prime loan property dealer Lennar Corporation. Breed's votes ensured that this corporation has been allowed to proceed with developing market rate condos (while betraying its affordable housing promises to the City) on a highly toxic Navy superfund site in the Bay View Hunters Point which will likely never be properly cleaned up.

In its construction, for the last six years, and to this day, Lennar has been stirring chemicals and asbestos into the air that have poisoned thousands of Bayview residents, which will doubtless lead to many premature and painful deaths in that community from cancer, mesothelioma, asthma and other diseases.

And yet during her campaign, Breed continuously bragged about how she grew up in the projects and has family in both the Fillmore and District 10.

Breed brings a deadly hypocrisy to District 5, the City, and the very neighborhoods from which she claims to have risen, and in which members of her own family live.

To read more about the toxic gentrification of Lennar corporation in our city, begin with the SF Guardian article 'The Corporation That Ate San Francisco' at http://www.sfbg.com/2007/03/14/corporation-ate-san-francisco

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 2:08 am

So that's why the realtors like her. It's so weird because here she says this:

Q: So why are [the realtors and landlords] supporting your candidacy? What do you think they think they’re going to get from you?

Breed: “I think people in District 5 don’t like all this big money bullcrap that is coming into our community and they may have seen that I was doing really well and, I don’ know, it may be a tactic or what have you. I don’t know, but I don’t like it.”

http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/5178/breed-responds-to-seiu-1021...

Is it just me or is that an outright dishonest answer that hides the obvious reason the realtors might support her.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 2:41 am

And I would add, that Breed was also deeply involved in moving forward the Treasure Island development project (Treasure Island being -another- Navy superfund site on which Lennar has won approval to build its toxic condo projects) in her roles as both a Treasure Island Development Authority staffer, and a Redevelopment Commissioner.

To see the toxic travesty that Treasure Island is becoming, go to: http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/treasure-island-a-radioactive-isl...

And then ask yourself if London Breed will protect the lives of the over 2.000 people currently living on that island, and the more than 20,000 slated to live there in the future, when her friend Lennar Corporation comes knocking on her office door.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 3:41 am

I mean that literally. Somebody else besides me must have noticed it.

On more than one occasion, while transiting past the point in a boat during light westerly winds a couple years ago, I smelled this strange odor from grading that was being done in Parcels E and E-2. The odor was unlike any I've ever detected coming from construction digging.

The only thing I was sort of reminded of by it was pharaceuticals or maybe hospitals; an association that may possible been suggested by the men in all-white coveralls in the area.

Posted by M.X. Herrmann on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 6:38 am

Olague betrayed the Ed Lee/Willie Brown led cabal that appointed her by failing to vote to uphold Mirkarimi's ouster. They pulled the plug on her and shifted their support to Breed. As with any gang, loyalty is the most important attribute. Olague defied the developer/realtor/"liberal" corporate gang that owns and runs San Francisco and had to go. Whatever Breed might say about rent control, she won't disobey the real rulers or she'll be out next time.

Posted by Eddie on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 3:36 am

In the highly progressive District 5, if Breed too easily shows her stripes and starts voting for downtown and corporate interests in earnest, it will likely be a pretty easy matter to launch a recall campaign against her.

So if she's smart, she'll keep it cool and vote progressive until it is time to run for higher office.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 4:00 am

if it is so freakin' progressive, why did she win?
she's already faced down the progressive mob in this town and won
good luck with your recall

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 7:43 am

I think Breed will vote progressively on many issues. That doesn't mean she's part of the "movement." That will bother many here, since once you're part of the "movement," your individual agency is gone in favor of pleasing your allies.

Posted by Hortencia on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 7:50 am

the Brown machine successfully tricked voters into believing that Breed is a progressive. (As can clearly see in the post right below yours in response to it.)

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 6:55 pm

I'd say D5 is highly progressive. That's why it voted out a woman who voted to reinstate a batterer to the Sheriff's office.

Posted by Hortencia on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 7:52 am

showed that D5 was more-or-less ambivalent regarding the Mirkarimi vote; in reality Ross Mirkarimi has broad support in the district.

The reality is that Mirkarimi supporters also constituted most of the 6,000 or so exhausted ballots. Those voters believed Christina Olague did the right thing for the wrong reason, but probably would have selected Olague over Breed if they'd had the opportunity to put more than their top three choices down.

And once again, though I don't expect you to register it, Olague correctly stated that the city charter does not give the mayor the power he assumed for himself in this matter. The language may be a bit amorphous, but when judged in the context of the U.S. Constitution, there isn't any doubt about it and the courts would have ultimately demonstrated that fact if Olague and Kim had not correctly voted.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 8:15 am

>"The reality is that Mirkarimi supporters also constituted most of the 6,000 or so exhausted ballots. "

No, @lilli, that's not reality, that's just a thought that you somehow generated.

Let's try a little exercise. Provide one iota of evidence that "Mirkarimi supporters also constituted most of the 6,000 or so exhausted ballots" other than just babbling something. Provide one iota from an outside source and not lillipublican.

It is for your own good...you need to somehow get a handle on what 'reality' is. It would be an important first step!

And remember...NO BABBLING!

Posted by Another Guest on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 8:35 am

"... in reality Ross Mirkarimi has broad support in the district." How do you know that?

Your assumption about Mirkarimi supporters and exhausted ballots presupposes that Olague, Davis, and Rizzo voters are Mirkarimi supporters, as are at least some Breed voters. That can't be true across the board. As usual, you use a progressive vs. machine zero-sum analysis that just doesn't match reality.

And of course you and Olague are wrong about the suspension and removal process that Lee and the City Attorney's office followed to the letter.

Posted by Hortencia on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 8:36 am

Even in the DV-sponsored poll, D5 was the one district where there was not a majority in favor of Ross' removal, and instead a majority that opposed it.

Posted by CitiReport on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 8:58 am

Why are those results considered accurate, but the rest of the poll isn't? Anyway, not being in a favor of the Sheriff's removal by the Mayor's process doesn't make everyone a Mirkarimi supporter. There were plenty of voices raised that said Mirkarimi should be removed, but by recall only.

Posted by Hortencia on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 9:36 am

And the Breed result confirms that perception.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 08, 2012 @ 7:17 am

Of course, the Avalos/Campos cabal had shifted their support before that as a result of the 8 Washington vote. Only when Davis's campaign imploded did they shift their support to Olague, too little and too late. Spy vs. Spy, forever.

Posted by Hortencia on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 8:42 am

There is no bigger gang in SF than the progressives and reading these smears of Breed in the house organ of this gang is just further proof of that...It's always tough when blacks turn their backs on white progressives.....the anger and rage of the left is always so stinging, so full of vitriol...one wonders why that is.....it's easier, I guess, when then blacks just fell in line and did what they were told....

Posted by HankEssay on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 7:14 am

but it is pretty astounding to see how the progressives in this town vilify those who aren't "pure." Tim is surprised about Olague not winning? Has he read his own paper the past year? They've been brutal towards her, and only when their golden boy Davis went down did they ever say a nice thing about her with the exception of her Mirkarimi vote.

I think SF progressives and US Republicans have at least one thing in common: they need to get used to the idea that it is better to elect someone who they agree with 80% of the time as opposed to losing with a candidate they agree with 100%. If not, they will see their influence continue to decline.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 7:41 am

Looks like the gastroturf efforts of Enrique Pearce in a contested election fall short absent a field operation run by people who give a shit and know what they're doing.

But I'm sure that he will get paid well by corporate power for services rendered.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 9:20 am

What if Pearce did not fail at all - those who were truly employing him?

Posted by anonymous on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 7:00 pm

for an immigrant who married here and decided to stay in the city with 2 kids and wife, I applaud that the board is finally moving to the right. I own a TIC and want it converted to Condo now! I am sorry that many of here would rather rent and own

Posted by Guest hispanico renteria on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 10:20 am

I want to buy my apartment, but my landlord won't sell it to me unless the other tenants also buy their apartments. Something about rent control laws. How can we make this work?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 10:44 am

Trying to find them on Dept of Elections site with no luck

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 12:03 pm
Posted by admin on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 12:11 pm

They kind of hide it and the main results page is misleading as far as RCV.

http://sfelections.org/results/20121106/index.php

Posted by D. Native on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 12:19 pm

Appreciate it!

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 12:31 pm

"Breed's victory showed that IRV once again, failed to help the 'progressive' candidates, as no one candidate stood out enough to separate themselves from the rest, or worked in real harmony to ensure the IRV votes didn't go to Breed. Based on the result, it may not have mattered, because the D5 base, like most District elections, is more inclined to vote for a home-grown, native resident of the District; preferably not someone appointed by the Mayor after one of their own was passed over; or perhaps someone not originally from San Francisco. It may also be possible that the voters were very likely disgusted with the all of the recent controversies, the tenor of the negative campaigning, and just wanted to move on. Sometimes, those kinds of attacks can boomerang on the attacker, and create a sympathetic vote for the attacked."

Posted by Hortencia on Nov. 08, 2012 @ 11:18 am

"It may also be possible that the voters were very likely disgusted with the all of the recent controversies, the tenor of the negative campaigning, and just wanted to move on. Sometimes, those kinds of attacks can boomerang on the attacker, and create a sympathetic vote for the attacked."

The BG said there was no way David could win, yet he came in a close fourth, and might have pulled it off, if they hadn't deserted him. So essentially they threw the most progressive candidate under the bus and will now have to contend with Breed catering to downtown corporate interests over the next few years, and possibly beyolnd. Way to shoot yourself in the foot, guys!

Posted by Merzbau on Nov. 08, 2012 @ 11:58 am

While Olague's vote on Mirkarimi had some effect, I think you're underestimating Breed's actual support in the neighborhood in which grew up and has done good work. Everyone's talking about RCV, but I think we need to give district elections their due here, too.

Posted by Hortencia on Nov. 08, 2012 @ 2:36 pm

I say that because only 39% of the people who voted listed Breed anywhere on their ballot (8% of the voters didn't have their votes counted because they couldn't fill out the confusing RCV ballot correctly).

If the voters were faced with a run-off to decide if they REALLY wanted someone as moderate as Breed to represent them we might have had a different outcome. We'll never know what the voters would have done. Because we have RCV.

Fortunately, Breed has said that it may be time to put RCV in front of the voters again so hopefully soon we'll join the 99.9% of local governments that don't play simulation games to decide elections.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 08, 2012 @ 11:56 am

The only thing that went wrong in the D5 race is that we progressives blew it. We failed to use a unity strategy from the beginning, and to also educate voters about Breed's corporate record, and we lost. Period. IRV had nothing to do with it. (We also should have spared some of the troops on the ground that we delivered for Mar to instead get out the vote for the progressive block in D5.)

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 08, 2012 @ 1:02 pm

Related articles

  • Sorting out a strange election

    What the Nov. 6 results mean -- and don't mean

  • District surprises

    Big-money efforts could unseat Olague -- but not Mar

  • Is the tax revolt over?