History certainly shows it’s possible, given the proclivities of San Francisco’s ranked-choice voting system, that a new candidate could jump into the mayor’s race and win.
On Thursday, the Chronicle released the results of a poll that shed new light on the city’s mayoral race. Incumbent London Breed is lagging. Only 18% of people polled said they’d list her as a first choice, compared to former Mayor Mark Farrell at 20%, Levi Strauss heir Daniel Lurie at 16% and Supervisor Ahsha Safaí with 8%.
Of course, San Francisco’s ranked-choice voting system doesn’t just count first-place votes. Looking at the second-place data, however, things get even worse for Breed. The mayor has fewer second-choice votes than Lurie or Farrell.
It’s still early; polls will likely shift as we get closer to the November election. But with a weak incumbent and her top challengers all representing the more moderate side of city politics, these numbers do raise a question: Could a progressive-leaning candidate jump in the race and win?
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
History certainly shows it’s possible, given the proclivities of ranked choice.
In 2019, ranked-choice voting favored former District Attorney Chesa Boudin when he ran against three other candidates. Boudin received the most first-place votes as moderates largely split their votes between Suzy Loftus and Nancy Tung. Ultimately, however, it was the second- and third-place votes from two eliminated, more moderate candidates that pushed him to 51%.
The current mayoral field has deep weaknesses with voters: of the 130 voters who self-identified as progressive, 44% said they don’t lean toward any of the candidates. If the election were held tomorrow, 23% said they’d vote for Safaí.
Could a new candidate win progressive voters over while still earning second and third place from moderates?
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
I talked to seven political analysts, progressive organizers and nonprofit leaders in San Francisco to find out. All of them said there’s a strong desire for an alternate candidate to step up.
“It feels very unclear how the current pool of candidates differs from each other from a progressive perspective,” said Celi Tamayo-Lee, executive director of SF Rising Action Fund, which advocates for working-class communities of color. “Lots of voters have seen five years of moderate to conservative policy coming out of the mayor’s office, with not much change in their day-to-day concerns.”
But can a progressive candidate stand out without alienating the moderate voters they would need?
Public safety dominates the policy priorities of current candidates, and rightly so: an annual poll from the Chamber of Commerce showed that 69% of city residents feel crime is worsening even though it’s down 7% this year. Progressive voters aren’t unaffected by this, but tough-on-crime rhetoric that results in sending more people to prison doesn’t resonate, either. While some voice support for more community-based policing, there remains skepticism about spending more money on the San Francisco Police Department. That’s a difficult hurdle to overcome for any candidate trying to win voters on both sides.
One subject raised by everyone I spoke to, that has thus far been completely left out of the race, is the conflict in Gaza. An international crisis may not be the first thing to come to mind in a local election, but it may have more of an impact than candidates’ strategists think.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
“It’s been really stunning how bad we are at reading the room on that particular issue,” said Nadia Rahman, an activist and organizer in San Francisco. She pointed to national polling, which shows that half of adults in the United States think Israel’s military campaign in Gaza has “gone too far” and that 80% of Democrats support a cease-fire.
Making the cease-fire a talking point in a local election wouldn’t necessarily have an impact on the conflict abroad. But measured ways to discuss the crisis — such as condemning the attacks by Hamas and still calling for an end to the violence in Gaza — would at least acknowledge the frustration and helplessness many voters feel, potentially setting a candidate apart in the field.
There’s something else missing from this race, too: a visionary plan for San Francisco’s future that doesn’t rely on narratives of fear. There’s a clear desire for someone who doesn’t just view San Francisco through the lens of its current crises, but who has a commitment to preserve and nurture those who are trying to keep the city’s spirit alive.
The looming question, of course, is who that candidate or candidates could be.
City Attorney David Chiu and Assembly Member Phil Ting are touted as people who could jump in, but both have remained quiet.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
One potential candidate, however, was mentioned by people I talked to: Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin — a sometimes controversial figure, but one known both for his encyclopedic knowledge of San Francisco’s rules and regulations and his commitment to advocating for Asian American communities.
“There is a growing clamor to get Peskin to run,” Jeffrey Kwong, president of the left-leaning Harvey Milk Democratic Club, told me. “I think he’s one of the few people moderates can come over to. He has his ear to the ground like no one else. There’s a consensus among progressives that he has the policy acumen and administrative ability. He’s someone who’s able to get started on the first day of the job.”
Peskin has said he hasn’t ruled out a run. When I asked him about the Chronicle’s poll, however, he told me his focus is on “better policies.”
“I know we can make this city work for everyone, in every neighborhood. But to make our city safer, to bring everyone in-doors, to create an economy that works for the rest of us is going to take uniting around smarter policies — not dividing around increasingly bitter politics.”
That sounded awfully campaign-ish to me. This isn’t an easy race to jump into, especially with the enormous amount of money already pouring into the top candidates’ coffers. But there’s still time: The deadline to file isn’t until June 11.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
Nothing is over until it’s over. After all, before the deadline was moved in 2012, former Mayor Ed Lee filed to run for a November election in August — and won.
Reach Nuala Bishari: nuala.bishari@sfchronicle.com
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Donald Low
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
visit website
