Election Night

Editor’s Notes

0

The Castro District on election night was filled with joy and excitement as people poured out into the streets to celebrate the Obama victory. Three nights later, the streets were filled with people protesting, not reveling. That was the weird thing about being a San Franciscan this past week: we won a world-changing victory in the presidential race, and won most of the key races locally — but on same-sex marriage, we lost.

There are plenty of reasons for that, and we talk about some of them in this issue. There have been protests at Mormon churches and at some Catholic churches, as there should be, since those two religious groups raised most of the Yes on Proposition 8 money. (And can you imagine how many low-income Catholic-school kids could have been educated and how many hungry people could have been fed for the more than $25 million these folks spent trying to keep people from getting married?)

But if San Francisco really wants a poster boy for the attack on same-sex marriage, a local symbol of bigotry, he’s right in front of us: Archbishop George Niederauer.

Now, if you’re a Catholic archbishop, you kind of have to accept the church’s dogma, which says that marriage is a sacrament that can only be bestowed on a man and a woman. Whatever — he can believe and preach what he wants.

But if you’re the archbishop of San Francisco, you don’t have to mount a major political campaign against same-sex marriage. You could decide to use the church’s influence and money helping the poor, for example, which is pretty much what Jesus did. I might have missed that lesson in Catholic school, but I don’t remember the Big J ever saying a word about gay marriage.

Instead, Niederauer and his colleagues made Prop. 8 a huge issue. A flyer produced by the archbishop and handed out widely contained some glaring, inaccurate homophobic crap, including this: "If the Supreme Court ruling stands, public schools may have to teach children that there is no difference between traditional marriage and ‘gay marriage.’"

That infuriated Matt Dorsey, a gay Catholic who is active in Most Holy Redeemer Church. "Far worse than mere falsehood," he said, "is that the claim deliberately plays to the most hateful, vicious stereotypes and fears about gays and lesbians — that they are out to recruit (and perhaps even seduce) children."

Dorsey told me that this was part of a clear political campaign. "I would argue that the Catholic bishops in California made a cold, calculated, Karl Rovian decision that they were going to put a lot of skin in the game, so to speak, to beat gays and lesbians," he said, "even to the exclusion of prevailing on, say, Prop. 4 about parental notification for abortion. One would assume abortion is still opposed by Catholic bishops, right? Well, one would hardly have known it by this election. Gays and lesbians were the archbishop’s enemy this year, and abortion got a pass."

Again: I don’t expect the Catholic church to change its position and start marrying same-sex couples, not any time soon, anyway. And Niederauer can’t be expected to openly break with the Vatican. But for the archbishop of a city like San Francisco — a church leader who has a surprising number of queers and same-sex couples in his flock — to put so many resources into going after people with such an un-Christian hatred was over-the-top unnecessary. And by the way, this guy never talks to the press and won’t return my phone calls.

The good news, of course, is that the archbishop and his colleagues are on the losing side of history. Catholics voted for Prop. 8 by a 64 percent margin — but people under 30 (of all faiths and ethnic groups) voted against it by about the same percentage. Same-sex marriage is going to be part of the nation’s future, whether Niederauer likes it or not.

The uncounted ballots

7

By Tim Redmond

So there are still a huge number of uncounted ballots at City Hall. No surprise there — we knew that was coming on election night.

And in most races, it won’t make much of a difference. But in some, like Prop. B, the outcome might change.

Here’s the problem: San Francisco is rapidly becoming a vote-by-mail town. That’s okay; in Oregon, all ballots are cast by mail. But we are operating as if this were still an earlier time, when almost everyone went to the polls on Election Day. If we are going to be voting differently, and we clearly are, the Department of Elections needs to change with the times.

There’s no reason why absentee ballots can’t be counted as they come in, so that when the polls close, most of those results will be immediately available. It’s not as if DOE is incompetant; the department has made great strides under John Arnst. But the supervisors should put this on the agenda for next year: How do we shift priorities and funding to handle modern elections?

(Oh, and the DOE could run the RCV tally on Election Night, too. It’s not hard.)

(Oh, and will somebody — maybe Aaron Peskin or Tom Ammiano, as a parting gift to all of us as they leave the board — please, please figure out how to get WiFi on Election Night in the North Light Court, where all the reporters are trying to post results and there is no Internet access at all? That room and the Board Chambers. I will volunteer to raise money to buy the router myself, and Alex Clemens has promised he will personally install it. Just show us where to plug the cable in.)

Early results: Only at SFBG.com!

6

Can’t wait for the city’s official RCV results? Neither could I. Steve Hill of the New America Foundation is unhappy that the city is waiting until Friday afternoon to run the RCV program, expecially since all the information you need to run it is now available — and public.

So Caleb Kleppner, one of Hill’s allies in the voting-reform movement, did the work himself. Here’s Hill’s message:

Attached to this email are the PRELIMINARY RCV results, as a result of running the tabulation on the ballot images posted on the Department of Elections website at 4:30 today. The tabulation was run by Caleb Kleppner of True Ballot (caleb@trueballot.com). The download of the ballot image zip file took about 30 seconds.

Mr. Kleppner then converted the ballot images into input files using a software program and then ran all the tallies on another program called Choice Plus Pro. Mr. Kleppner tells me that he ran the results for all four races in about 12 minutes, which shows you how easy it is to do (which means Sequoia could have done the same thing on election night, or Wednesday, or today, if Director Arntz had instructed them to do so. In fact, according to the file on the web, the Department of Elections produced the master file that defined all the candidates and elections at 11:47 am PT this morning and the ballot image file at 2:47 pm. At that point it would have been a simple additional step – just a few keystrokes on the computer – to run the tabulation, and twelve minutes later they would have had all the results. It’s really that simple).

Here are the usual words of caution for any election: These are PRELIMINARY results. Just as any other election has preliminary results, so do RCV races. I have been told that there are still approximately 110,000 absentee and provisional ballots to process, so for any races that are extremely close (whether RCV or non-RCV) it’s always good to keep in mind that preliminary results are not final results, and results can change. RCV is no different in that way than any other type of electoral method.

The results from this prelim run: Mar in D1, Chiu in D3, Campos in D9 and Avalos in D11. I don’t think the absentees will change much.

Again: I didn’t run this program, and I can’t vouch for the accuracy of the results. But I can vouch for Steve and Caleb, so this is at least worth perusing.

READ THE EXCEL FILE HERE

Drunk on hope … and Baracktails

0

By Molly Freedenberg

Thanks to the results of the presidential election, it seemed everyone I saw Tuesday night was happy and drunk. (Perhaps it also had something to do with drowning out the memory of the sad fates of Props H and 8.) And not surprisingly, many were reeling from cocktails they’d invented or renamed just for election night. My favorites? The Baracktail, a mixture of champagne and a fruity liquer, which was later rechristined The Landslide; and the Obama Bomb, a combo of Bacardi O and Red Bull.

What intoxicated you on November 4 (other than hope and triumph)? Let us know in the comments. Drink names are great, recipes are even better. And if you know of a bar who’s keeping one on the menu, or running election-themed drink specials, we’re interested in that too.

Obama 4th, 2008: Where were you?

6

By Molly Freedenberg

Some moments we don’t recognize as historic until they’ve passed. Others are so monumental, we feel their future importance even as we experience them in the present. The bombing of Pearl Harbor, Kennedy’s assassination, and 9/11 all were such moments – those old enough to be cognizant all remember where they were the first moment they heard the news.

Our newest such moment is, of course, election night 2008.

And so we’d like to ask, as your history books and children and relatives surely will ask you for years to come: Where were you when you heard the news of Obama’s election? How did you feel? And how did you celebrate? Leave your answer in the comments below. Also, if you have photos or video of election night, we’d like to see them! Please send links or files with subject line “Obama 4th” to art.guardian@gmail.com.

I’ll kick things off:

When I first heard the news, I was at Inner Mission Tavern, watching CNN with a room packed full of strangers. As they hugged and cheered and drank, I stood still and cried. I stayed to watch the speeches, struck by several things …

Nader sullies his legacy

37

By Steven T. Jones

I’ve never apologized for voting for Ralph Nader in 2000 — even as I criticized his decision to run this year and that of Matt Gonzalez to join him as his running mate (for which I was widely criticized by progressives) — but I’m tempted to do so now. While I have enormous respect for Nader’s accomplishments as a consumer activist and populist hero, I do regret helping to elevate him to a position where he can do such damage to the progressive movement with reckless, divisive, racially insensitive remarks like those he made on election night, when he equated Barack Obama with Uncle Tom.

When even Fox News thinks that you’re being a racist and callous jerk, it’s probably time to gracefully withdraw from public life, as I hope Nader now does. He got about 1 percent of the national vote, just under that in California and just over it in San Francisco, where his choice of Gonzalez should have made him do better if there was any productive role for his campaign to play in national politics. Electoral reform is still an important issue, and I believe in breaking the lock of the two-party system and its sponsorship by corporate America, but Nader as a candidate is clearly no longer the best vehicle for that message. In fact, he’s now undercutting it. Goodbye, Ralph, I’m sorry it had to end like this.

Is Prop. B still in the running?

1

By Tim Redmond

Calvin Welch thinks it is. Here’s his analysis:

It’s not over yet folks. Were are down 2,400 votes with a significant number of votes yet to be counted from areas that we expect to do well in.

According to the information I got from the Department of Elections, there are some 113,000 absentee and early voting ballots yet to be counted, in addition to some 17,000 “provisional “ ballots. Discount the provisiona’s as most are not valid.

The election night count is weighted towards returns from district with supervisors races in order to get these races’ outcome first: Dist 1,3,4,5,7,9,and 11 with an undercounting from Districts 2,6,8,and 10. Since the election night pool of votes were weighted to the big conservative and “swing districts” (1,3,4,7 and 11) and only D5 and D9 of the progressive districts were included in the count, chances are that a significant portion of the yet to be counted votes are from D 2,6,8,and 10 — the last three of which we figure to be supportive of Prop B.

Check the DOE web site at about 4:30PM or so this afternoon as they will post an update. If the past is truce they will count about 20,000 votes or so (more or less) a day so we may have a day or two to go before this bad boy is done.

The district supes — what happens now

0

By Tim Redmond

It’s astonishing to me that in this modern age, San Francisco still can’t get the votes counted on election night. I understand that the Department of Elections was overwhelmed by absentee ballots, but if we’re becoming a vote-by-mail city — and it appears we are, since almost half the votes this time will be absentee — then we should be prepared for it. If that means extra DOE staff in the two weeks before Election Day to tally those votes and have them ready to go, then it’s worth doing.

Anyway, that’s not where we are; where we are is that 100,000 more votes still have to be counted, and DOE director John Arnst says that won’t be finished for a couple of weeks.

And then there’s the matter of ranked-choice voting. Arnst has decided not to even begin running the RCV program until Friday, so we won’t have even unofficial results until then.

But here’s how it looks right now:

In district one, Eric Mar has 42 percent of the vote, and his closest competitor, Sue Lee, is 10 points behind. Lee just narrowly edged Mar in the first round of absentees; she was ahead 33 percent to 32 percent. So even if there are 9000 absentees in this district, AND they split as pro-Lee as the early absentees did, Mar would still be far ahead. In order to make up the 1,700 vote margin, Lee would have to win about 60 percent of the remaining votes tha goe for her or Mar, which seems highly unlikely. And if Mar is above 40 percent and needs only 10 percent more from the second- and third-place votes, he’s in very good shape. I’d say this one is pretty darn close to over.

In district three, David Chiu has 39 percent of the vote and the next in line is Joe Alioto, with 23 percent. Chiu actually came in first in the absentees. No way Alioto makes that difference up. Same as D1 — this one’s pretty safe.

D4, Carmen Chu. Re-elected.
D5, Ross Mirkarimi. Re-elected
D7. Sean Elsbernd. Re-Elected.

In District 9, David Campos has 35 percent of the vote, Mark Sanchez 29 and Eric Quezada 21. The absentees won’t change much here; Campos won the early absentees, Sanchez was second. This will come down to the Quezada votes; if they break about even (a good guess) Campos takes it. They could break overwhelmingly for Sanchez, but that’s the only way this one changes, and I doubt it will happen.

District 11 is interesting. John Avalos has 30 percent, to 24 for Ahsha Safai. Avalos beat Safai in the absentees — but in that group of voters, Myrna Lim, now at 16 percent, came in second. That suggests a heavily Asian absentee vote, and if the trend holds, Lim could pick up some more votes (athough there’s no way she could come in first, which is a very good thing.) The question is how Lim’s second-place votes break, because this one is close enough that seconds and thirds could really matter. The Avalos supporters knew that going in, and worked hard to run an RCV campaign, to reach out to Lim backers and urge them to vote Avalos #2. If that worked, he’s in.

We’ll know a lot more on Friday, when the DOE runs its first pass at RCV. I don’t understand why we have to wait that long; the program is simple, and they could run it right now. But wait we will.

Election Night Hits

0

IMG00075.jpg
Obama tees are our overalll favorite, but John Avalos tees are a hit, locally.

The number one fashion hit, nationwide, was the ubiquitously beautiful Obama T-shirt. Ask anyone who wore an Obama tee on his election night, they’ll recall how they were greeted with high-fives and whoops of joy as the news spread that Obama had done it, just like we always hoped and prayed he would.

Election-night bashes off the grid

1

OK, we all know about the free election-daze bevvies at Starbuck’s and gratis donuts at Krispy Kreme (if you’re so hot for free caff, why not get your fix at a local kawfee-seller like Farley’s on Potrero Hill instead?) – but what about all those other parties out there for you freedom-lovin’ America-for-Americans? Tonight it’s time to celebrate (and toast the outgoing, seemingly never-ending campaign cycle). Say “s’long” to those perpetually looping, loopy infomercials… here, there, everywhere:

PARTY LIKE AN ART STAR
Free pizza when the polls close! And an opportunity to write on the walls, think historical thoughts, and live it up at Yerba Buena Center for the Arts. YBCA put a call out to makers to help them dream up a got-out-the-vote getdown. And boy did they respond: participants include Hella Hella Acapella with Lara Maykovich, Maya Dorm, Nichole Rodriguez, Marissa Greene and Madeleina Bolduc; Sri Satya Ritual Movement with Micah Allison, Isis, Indriya and Nikilah Badua; Anahata Sound; Derick Ion and the Satya Yuga Collective; Dancing the Dead Dharma (Sara Shelton Mann and Dance Brigade); Alleluia Panis and Dwayne Calizo; Anna Halprin; DJ Wey South; DJ Aztec Parrot with YBCA Young Artists at Work; rigzen; Maji; Sara Shelton Mann; Dance Brigade; Bruce Ghent; Rajendra Serber; Sonya Smith; Kira Maria Kirsch; Folawole Oyinlola; Lena Gatchalian; Sarah Bush; Hana Erdman; Karen Elliot; Richelle Donigan; Kimberly Valmore; Krissy Keefer, and Guardna contributor D. Scot Miller. Whew. Pass the Joe Six-Pack. 6–11 p.m., free with cash bar. YBCA, 701 Mission, SF.

CHICK-CHICK-CHICK THAT BOX
For finger-licking good times after licking the GOP? Free chicken if Obama wins from 9-10 p.m. at Farmer Brown, 25 Mason, SF. (415) 409-FARM.

SAN FRANCISCO’S OBAMA VICTORY PARTY

Oh, why not just call it now. Drink specials, guest speakers, and live election coverage. First 100 attendees get a free Shephard Fairy “Hope” poster. Doors 6 p.m., free. Mezzanine, 444 Jessie, SF. (415) 625-8880.

DON’T DODGE THE DRAFTS
Drafts – that’s our cue to drink up! The Guardian bash boasts a free beer special (while it lasts) when you present a voter receipt or sticker. Win prizes like Beach Blanket Babylon tickets at an election trivia challenge. 7-9 p.m., free. Kilowatt, 3160 16th St., SF. (415) 861-2595.

Election night parties in SF

2

By Bay Guardian News Staff

There will probably be hundreds of parties in the Bay Area marking this historic election. But with 22 local ballot measures and seven of the 11 seats on the Board of Supervisors up for grabs, there are more official campaign parties than ever before (which we’ll do our very best to cover as we bring you our usual live election coverage here on this blog).
All the parties are free and they generally start around 8 p.m. when the polls close. So take a look at our list so far and feel free to add to it in the comments section with the ones we’re missing. And don’t forget to vote.

Where to celebrate or drown your sorrows

0

We’re in the process of pulling together a complete list of election night parties that we’ll post here before Tuesday (feel free to send me yours at steve@sfbg.com). In the meantime, if you’re not looking to party with local political luminaries and just want to find a public spot to drink and watch the returns roll in, our intern Katie Baker has found some spots for you.

By Katie Baker

Is it really almost over? I feel like I’m living in some kind of alternate reality, where we’ll be analyzing poll results and fretting over swing states until the end of time. This hasn’t only been a grueling election process for Obama and McCain — whether it’s the latest Sarah Palin wardrobe controversy or another 700 point DOW drop — it seems like there’s a new political crisis every time you refresh your RSS feed. We’re in the home stretch, but the most stressful day is still to come – wouldn’t you rather skip the nail-biting anticipation and just black out until November 5th ? It doesn’t matter whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat; there’s no reason to be sober on Election Night. Here’s a list of the best places to get wasted on November 4th, whether you end up celebrating or drowning your sorrows.

The Clean Slate 2008

0


>>CLICK HERE FOR OUR LIVE ELECTION NIGHT COVERAGE!

NATIONAL AND STATE RACES
President: Barack Obama
Congress, District 6: Lynn Woolsey
Congress, District 7: George Miller
Congress, District 8: Cindy Sheehan
Congress, District 13: Pete Stark
Superior Court, Seat 12: Gerardo Sandoval
State Senate, District 3: Mark Leno
State Senate, District 9: Loni Hancock
State Assembly, District 12: Fiona Ma
State Assembly, District 13: Tom Ammiano
State Assembly, District 14: Nancy Skinner

STATE PROPOSITIONS
Proposition 1A: YES, YES, YES
Proposition 2: YES
Proposition 3: NO
Proposition 4: NO, NO, NO
Proposition 5: YES
Proposition 6: NO, NO, NO
Proposition 7: NO
Proposition 8: NO, NO, NO
Proposition 9: NO, NO, NO
Proposition 10: NO
Proposition 11: NO
Proposition 12: YES

SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
District 1: Eric Mar
District 3: 1. David Chiu; 2. Denise McCarthy; 3. Tony Gantner
District 4: Dave Ferguson
District 5: Ross Mirkarimi
District 7: Sean Elsbernd
District 9: 1. David Campos; 2. Eric Quezada; 3. Mark Sanchez
District 11: 1. John Avalos; 2. Randy Knox; 3. Julio Ramos

BOARD OF EDUCATION
Sandra Fewer, Norman Yee, Barbara Lopez, Kimberly Wicoff

COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD
Milton Marks, Chris Jackson, Bruce Wolfe

BART BOARD OF DIRECTORS
District 7: Lynette Sweet
District 9: Tom Radulovich

SAN FRANCISCO MEASURES
Proposition A: YES, YES, YES
Proposition B: YES, YES, YES
Proposition C: NO
Proposition D: YES
Proposition E: YES
Proposition F: YES
Proposition G: YES
Proposition H: YES, YES, YES
Proposition I: NO
Proposition J: YES
Proposition K: YES
Proposition L: NO
Proposition M: YES
Proposition N: YES, YES, YES
Proposition O: YES, YES, YES
Proposition P: NO, NO, NO
Proposition Q: YES, YES, YES
Proposition R: NO
Proposition S: NO
Proposition T: YES
Proposition U: YES
Proposition V: NO, NO, NO

EAST BAY RACES
Alameda County Superior Court Judge, seat 9: Dennis Hayashi
Berkelely Mayor: Tom Bates

BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL
District 2: Darryl Moore
District 3: Max Anderson
District 4: Jesse Arreguin
District 5: Sophie Hahn
District 6: Phoebe Ann Sorgen

BERKELEY SCHOOL BOARD
John Selawksy
Beatriz Levya-Cutler

AC TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
At-large: Chris Peeples
Ward 2: Greg Harper

EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
Director, Ward 5: Doug Linney
Director, Ward 6: Bob Feinbaum

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARKS DISTRICT
Director, Ward 1: Norman LaForce

EAST BAY MEASURES
Berkeley Measure FF: YES
Berkeley Measure GG: YES
Berkeley Measure HH: YES
Berkeley Measure II: YES
Berkeley Measure JJ: YES
Berkeley Measure KK: NO
Berkeley Measure LL: NO

Oakland City Council (At Large): Rebecca Kaplan
Oakland Measure N: YES
Oakland Measure OO: YES

ALAMEDA COUNTY MEASURES
Measure VV: YES
Measure WW: YES

>>CLICK HERE FOR PRINTOUT VERSION.

>>READ OUR COMPLETE 2008 ENDORSEMENTS HERE.

PG&E and a Rock Rapids, Iowa, liberal

2

By Bruce B. Brugmann

I confess. I am an old-fashioned Rock Rapids, Iowa, liberal. For starters, that means I grew up in a little town in northwestern Iowa that has had public power since 1896 and so i know personally that public power is cheap, reliable, and accountable.

In San Francisco, where PG&E private power is expensive, unreliable, and unaccountable, I was startled to find that I am suddenly an “ultra liberal,” along with a host of other progressives and independents who support the Clean Energy Initiative and public power.

Yes, according to PG&E and the San Francisco Chronicle, we are all suspicious characters and ought to be kept under watch for the duration for advocating such “ultra-liberal” things as clean energy, renewables, public power, mandates for making San Francisco a world leader in renewables, and kicking PG&E out of the mayor’s office and the DCCC.

As Tim Redmond points out in his Editors notes (8/20/08), the term first appeared in Heather Knight’s Aug. 15th article on the changes in the Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC), for decades the unassailable bastion of the Burton/ Brown machine. Her lead, he noted, was “almost breathtaking ” in its drama. She wrote that the party “has veered dramatically to the left,” and that it would be telling voters to vote for a raft of “ultra-liberal politicians supervisorial candidates” and, among other things, to “embrace public power.” (The Clean Energy Initiative, as it is appropriately known, mandates aggressive goals for renewables but PG&E gallops swiftly by this point and loves to say without evidence that the initiative is a $4 billion takeover of PG&E, which is yet another Big PG&E Lie.)

Meanwhile, the new Chronicle columnist Willie Brown, who ran endless errands for PG&E as mayor and as a private attorney on the public payroll, and collected a nifty $200,000 in “consulting services” in 2007 from PG&E, wrote without gulping:

“It was quite a week for local politics, with the certified takeover of the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee by outgoing Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin and Chris Daly…But what’s really going on here behind the headlines is a move by the ‘progressives’ to take over the central committee a la Tammany Hall or Richard Daley’s Chicago. The goal is to control the party money and endorsements–and that way be able to pick candidates for office as well.

“In other words the central committee will be Peskin’s shadow mayoralty, allowing Peskin to keep calling the shots even when he leaves office.”

Tammany Hall? Richard Daley’s Chicago? Why didn’t Wiillie just say what the facts are: that the Burton/Brown machine, and Mayor Newsom and PG&E et al, are no longer calling the shots on the DCCC and that a group of real progressives are cutting the umbilical cord to machine politics and calling the shots with real progressive issues and initiatives, such as the Clean Energy Act. Willie also couldn’t say of course that PG&E got much of its influence through his office as mayor and the Burton/Brown machine, which never put as much as a pebble in PG&E’s monopoly path. Thus, until now, the machine-dominated DCCC has been a safe haven for PG&E and even this time around the real progressives only won through a major organizing effort and tough battle.

Tim wrote that he thinks Newsom’s political operatives are mad that “the progressives have seized control of the term ‘progressives.’ which is in fact an accurate and historically valuable term. They’d like to call Newsom a progressive mayor, which is inaccurate and historically invalid. But since they can’t get away with that, they’ve pushed the Chronicle to use another term for people like Chris Daly and Aaron Peskin and the best the editors could come up with is ‘ultra liberal.'” The Chronicle, which appears to be once again revving up for PG&E, tosses a juicy T-bone to PG&E and its campaign theme that only the loony left would support such dread issues as clean energy and public power.

Maybe we have a new insight into the term progressive. A real progressive supports the Clean Energy Act and public power, while a phony Willie Brown/Gavin Newsom ‘progressive,’ in quotes, supports PG&E and opposes the Clean Energy Act. In short, there is a big difference between a real progressive and a PG&E ‘progressive.’

And me? I’m still just an old-fashioned Rock Rapids, Iowa, liberal.

More to come on this illuminating subject, B3

P.S. 1:Hearst ethics policy: If Hearst wants to present Willie Brown as a “legitimate” journalist and featured political columnist, making value judgments and ethical pronouncements on who is and is not a real progressive and whether the DCCC has been taken over by clean energy progressives playing Tammany Hall/Richard Daley machine politics, the Chronicle ought at minimum to require disclosure of his “consulting services” for PG&E and other private interests that would conflict his column? What specific “consulting services” did he provide for PG&E in 2007? What is he doing now for PG&E and for how much in the November election? Is he writing a political column for the Chronicle and working for PG&E at the same time? Is he advising PG&E on how to “steal” another election?
(I left a message for Willie at the Willie Brown Institute and I put out an email to Hearst corporate for comment on Willie’s PG&E/editorial role.)

It was Mayor Willie, as the public power campaign was winning in the 2001 public power election, who ordered that the ballots be moved from City Hall to the Civic Auditorium because of an anthrax scare. I remember standing with Angela Alioto about l0:30 p.m. on election night when then Elections Director Tammy Haygood, announced the anthrax move. “Angela,” I said, “we’ve lost the election.” She didn’t believe me and kept saying, “No, no, we couldn’t lose the election now.” Alas, I was right.

We raced over to the Auditorium where there was only minimal security. There was no evidence then or later of an anthrax scare. PG&E came from behind and won by a bare 500 votes. Several days later, several tops of the election boxes were found floating in the bay. There was no explanation from Willie nor his election director and no real investigation. The gallows humor was that the campaign should hire divers to go into the bay and find the missing ballots.

PG&E’s big payments: PG&E discloses the $200,000 payment to Willie Brown for “consulting services” in 2007 in its annual report to the California Public Utilities Commission. In a key section of this report (called page 257), PG&E is required to list every payment that it made to an outside company or consultant. This amounts to billions year.
PG&E has the entire annual report posted on its Investor Relations website, but, significantly, page 357 is missing.
PG&E’s statement explaining the omission says: “Details of this page are filed with the California Public Utilities Commission.” Reporter Amanda Witherell formally asked the CPUC press office for it and they said they’re “trying to track it down.” But she did get a copy.

Election as prologue

0

› steve@sfbg.com

San Francisco politics shifted June 3 as successful new coalitions altered the electoral landscape heading into the high-stakes fall contests, when seven of the 11 seats on the Board of Supervisors are up for grabs.
Progressives had a good election night even as lefty shot-caller Sup. Chris Daly suffered a pair of bitter defeats. And Mayor Gavin Newsom scored a rare ballot box victory when the southeast development measure Proposition G passed by a wide margin, although voters repudiated Newsom’s meddling with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission by approving Prop. E.

But the big story wasn’t these two lame duck politicians, who have served as the two poles of local politics for the past few years. It was Mark Leno, who handed Sen. Carole Migden her first electoral defeat in 25 years by bringing together progressives and moderates and waging an engaged, effective ground campaign. In the process, he may have offered a portent of things to come.

The election night speech Leno gave just before midnight — much like his entire campaign — didn’t break along neat ideological lines. There were solidly progressive stands, like battling the religious right’s homophobia, pledging to pursue single-payer health care, and blasting Pacific Gas & Electric Co. for funding sleazy attack pieces against him, reaffirming his commitment to public power.

But he also thanked Newsom and other moderate supporters and heaped praise on his political consulting firm, BMWL, which has run some of downtown’s nastiest campaigns. "It was clean, it was smart, and it was effective," Leno said of his campaign.

The Migden campaign, which had the support of Daly and many prominent local progressives, often looked dirty by comparison, marred by past campaign finance violations that resulted in Migden getting slapped with the biggest fine in state history and by Daly’s unethical misuse of the Guardian logo on a mailer that made it appear as if we had endorsed Migden.

Old alliances seemed to crumble around this election, leaving open questions about how coalitions will form going into an important November election that’s expected to have a crowded ballot and huge turnout.

UNITY AND DIVISION


There are things that unite almost all San Franciscans, like support for public schools. In this election that support came in the form of Prop. A — a measure that will increase teacher salaries through a parcel tax of about $200 per property owner — which garnered almost 70 percent of the vote.

"These numbers show that people believe in public education. They believe in what we’re doing," school superintendent Carlos Garcia told a jubilant election night crowd inside the Great American Music Hall.

Also uniting the city’s Democrats was the news that Barack Obama sewed up the party’s presidential nomination June 3, ending a primary battle with Hillary Clinton that had created a political fissure here and in cities across the country.

"The winds of change are blowing tonight. Let me congratulate Barack Obama on his victory," Leno said on election night, triggering a chant of "Yes we can" from the crowd at the Upper Market bar/restaurant Lime.

Local Clinton supporters were already switching candidates on election night, even before Clinton dropped her campaign and announced her support for Obama four days later.

"As a strong Hillary person, I’m so excited to be working for Obama these next five months," DCCC District 13 member Laura Spanjian, who won reelection by placing fourth out of 12 slots, said on election night. "It’s my number one goal this fall."

Leno also sounded conciliatory themes. In his election night speech, Leno acknowledged the rift he created in the progressive and LGBT communities by challenging Migden: "I know that you upset the applecart when you challenge a sitting senator."

But he vowed to repair that damage, starting by leading the fight against the fall ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriage and overturn the recent California Supreme Court decision that legalized it. He told the crowd, "I invite you to join together to defeat the religious right."

A day later we asked Leno about whether his victory represented a new political center in San Francisco and he professed a desire to avoid the old political divisions: "Let’s focus on our commonalities rather than differences," he said, "because there is real strength in a big-tent coalition."

But this election was more about divisions than unity, splits whose repercussions will ripple into November in unknown ways. Shortly before the election, Daly publicly blasted "Big Labor" after the San Francisco Labor Council cut a deal with Lennar Corporation, agreeing to support Prop. G in exchange for the promise of more affordable housing and community benefits.

On election night, Newsom couldn’t resist gloating over besting Daly, whose affordable housing measure Prop. F lost big. "I couldn’t be more proud that the voters of San Francisco supported a principled proposal over the political proposal of a politician," Newsom told us on election night, adding, "Today was a validation of community investment and involvement over political games."

While Daly and some of his progressive allies have long warned that Leno is too close to Newsom to be trusted, one of the first points in Leno’s speech was the celebrate the passage of Prop. E, which gives the Board of Supervisors more power to reject the mayor’s appointees to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. "As an early supporter I was happy to see that," Leno said.

Susan Leal, the former SFPUC director who was ousted by Newsom earlier this year, said she felt some vindication from the vote on Prop. E, but mostly she was happy that people saw through the false campaign portrayals (which demonized the Board of Supervisors and erroneously said the measure gave it control over the SFPUC.)

"This is one of the few PUCs where people are appointed and doing the mayor’s bidding is the only qualification," Leal told us on election night.
Sup. Tom Ammiano, who will be headed to the Assembly next year, agreed: "It shows the beauty contest with the mayor is over and people are willing to hold him accountable."

ANALYZING THE RESULTS


On the day after the election, during a postmortem at the downtown office of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, political consultants Jim Stearns and David Latterman sized up the results.

Latterman called the Prop. E victory "the one surprise in the race." The No on E campaign sought to demonize the Board of Supervisors, a strategy that clearly didn’t work. Firing Leal, a lesbian, helped spur the city’s two major LGBT groups — the Harvey Milk and Alice B. Toklas Democratic clubs — to endorse the measure, which could have been a factor when combined with the high LGBT turnout.

"This may have ridden the coattails of the Leno-Migden race," Stearns said.

In that race, Stearns and Latterman agreed that Leno ran a good campaign and Migden didn’t, something that was as big a factor in the outcome as anything.
"Migden did too little too late. The numbers speak for themselves. Leno ran a really good race," Latterman said, noting how Leno beat Migden by a large margin in San Francisco and came within a few thousand votes of beating Joe Nation on his home turf of Marin County.

"It was a big deal for Leno to get so close to Nation in Marin," Stearns said.

Leno told us the polling his campaign did late last year and early this year showed he had a strong advantage in San Francisco, "so with that, I invested a lot of time and energy in Marin County."

Stearns attributed the big Prop. G win to its large base of influential supporters: "The coalition-building was what put this over the top." Daly chalked it up to the $4 million that Lennar spent, saying it had bought the election. But Stearns, who was a consultant for the campaign, didn’t agree: "I don’t think money alone ever wins or loses campaigns."

Yet he said the lack of money and an organized No on G/Yes on F campaign did make it difficult to stop the Lennar juggernaut. "You need to have enough money to get your message out," Stearns said, noting that "Nobody knew that the Sierra Club opposed [Prop. G]."

In the one contested judge’s race on the ballot, Gerardo Sandoval finished in a virtual dead heat with incumbent Judge Thomas Mellon. The two will face off again in a November runoff election because a third candidate, Mary Mallen, captured about 13 percent of the vote.

"How angry is Sandoval with Mallen now?" Latterman asked at the SPUR event. "If that 13 percent wasn’t there, Sandoval wins."

Both Latterman and Stearns agreed that this election was Sandoval’s best shot at unseating a sitting judge. "He’s going to face a tougher test in November," Stearns said.

The other big news was the lopsided defeat of Prop. 98, which would have abolished rent control and limits on condo conversions in addition to its main stated aim of restricting the use of eminent domain by local governments.

"It just lost bad," Latterman said of Prop. 98, the second extreme property rights measure to go down in recent years. "It just needs to go away now…. This was a resounding, ‘Just go away now, please.’<0x2009>"

LOOKING FORWARD


Aside from the Leno victory, this election was most significant in setting up future political battles. And progressives won a big advantage for the battles to come by picking up seats on the city’s two Democratic County Central Committees, a successful offensive engineered largely by Daly and Peskin, who were both elected to the eastside DCCC District 13.

"On the DCCC level, we took back the Democratic Party," said Robert Haaland, a progressive who was reelected to the DCCC District 13.

"The fight now is over the chair. The chair decides where the resources go and sets the priorities, so you can really do a lot," Haaland told us.

Many of the fall supervisorial contests feature races between two or three bona fide progressives, so those candidates are going to need to find issues or alliances that will broaden their bases.

In District 9, for example, the candidates include housing activist Eric Quezada (who lost his DCCC race), school board president Mark Sanchez, and Police Commission member David Campos — all solid progressives, all Latino, and all with good bases of support.

Campos finished first in his DCCC District 13 race just ahead of Peskin. Speaking on election night at the GAMH, Campos attributed his strong showing to walking lots of precincts and meeting voters, particularly in the Mission, an effort that will help him in the fall.

"A lot of Latino voters are really eager to be more involved [in politics]," Campos said. "Speaking the language and being an immigrant really connects with them."

Campos thinks public safety will be a big issue on voters’ minds this fall, an issue where he has strength and one that progressives have finally seized. "Until Ross Mirkarimi came along, progressives really weren’t talking about it," Campos said.

So, does Campos’ strong DCCC showing make him the front runner? When I asked that question during the SPUR event, Latterman said he didn’t think so. He noted that Sanchez has always had strong finishes on his school board races, citywide contests that includes the Portola area in District 9 but not in DCCC District 13. In fact, Latterman predicted lots of acrimony and close contests this November.

"If you like the anger of Leno vs. Migden, we’ll have more in the fall," Latterman said of the competitive supervisorial races.

Leno hasn’t been terribly active in local contests since heading to Sacramento, and he told us that his focus this fall will be on state ballot fights and the presidential race. He hasn’t made endorsements in many supervisorial races yet, but his two so far are both of progressives: Ross Mirkarimi in District 5, and David Chiu in District 3. And as he makes more supervisorial endorsements in the coming months, Leno told us, "I will be fighting for progressive voices."

Sarah Phelan contributed to this story.

Mark Leno’s party packed

0

Mark Leno’s election night party has been a stark contrast to what we saw earlier tonight at Joe Nation’s event, which was situated at the unfortunately named “Wipe Out” restaurant in Greenbrae. Leno’s campaign office in San Rafael is packed wall-to-wall, the crowd noisy and erupting in frequent applause when new figures from the secretary of state show up on a projector putting Leno ahead.

He told a radio reporter earlier tonight that overall during the election, he’s had to raise $1.2 million (we’ve seen it in the piles of slick, anti-Nation mailers that have mounted in our mailbox). But he says there’s got to be a way to overcome the cost of operating a modern campaign election, most of which put people with big ideas but no connections out of the bidding. Leno just thanked a litany of campaign staffers and volunteers for backing him over the last 15 months before heading off to San Francisco where we’ve heard he also has an event planned for the Lime club in the Castro.

We were situated in a Leno war room with campaign staffers — including Leno’s manager, Tom, described by colleagues as “eternally pessimistic” — who still seem wary of calling the election for Leno. The numbers, however, are looking more and more inevitable. If he wins, Leno’s gonna have to work on the music he rock, representing a district like this and all, which includes San Francisco. Someone just put the Dirty Dancing theme on the sound system. Not good. As far as North Bay events went tonight, Leno’s has been much more electric than what Nation had going on earlier.

DSCF0409.jpg

DSCF0414.jpg

DSCF0415.jpg

DSCF0417.jpg
On the left, Leno field organizer Carole Mills, and on the right, volunteer coordinator Evelyn Woo.

DSCF0421.jpg
Marriage equality activists and Leno supporters Dolores Caruthers, on the left, and Laura Espinoza, on the right.

Joe Nation’s election night party

0

We showed up at Joe Nation’s election night party in the Marin County town of Greenbrae around eight o’clock. The event’s being held at a restaurant called the Wipe Out Bar & Grill in a quiet strip mall here. State figures are showing Leno ahead of the pack by five percentage points. By the time we arrived at Wipe Out, the candidate wasn’t around.

The restaurant’s proprietor, Bob Partrite, told us Nation’s crew was supposed to be here at a quarter of eight. Long after the hour, Nation was still missing in action. In fact, for much of the time we were hanging around, reporters outnumbered Nation supporters, as seen in the photos below. But Wyatt Buchanan of the Chronicle insisted on acknowledging that by half past the hour, a few people were trickling in. Most of the chairs remained empty, however, and a whole bunch of utensils went unused, at least while we were there. Just sayin’.

DSCF0395.jpg
Joe Nation’s supporters weren’t filling any of the chairs. Those are reporters in the background from KPFA.

DSCF0396.jpg
We came upon stacks of unused utensils at eight o’clock when we showed, 15 minutes after the candidate was supposed to be here. But some food did start to fill plates at around 8:30. The candidate still wasn’t around, however.

DSCF0398.jpg

DSCF0400.jpg
More empty chairs.

Election night parties

0

Here’s a roundup of the main local election night parties:
Yes on A – Great American Music Hall, O’Farrell and Polk streets

Yes on F, No on G – Grace Tabernacle Church, 1121 Oakdale

Yes on G, No on F – Javalencia Café, 3900 3rd Street

Mark Leno – Campaign HQ, 1344 Fourth Street (at “D” Street)
San Rafael, CA 94901 (he might also stop by Lime, 2247 Market Street, where some DCCC candidates – including Laura Spanjian and David Campos – are having a party)

Carole Migden – Campaign HQ, 121 9th St., near Minna

Joe Nation – Wipeout Bar and Grill, 302 BonAir Center, Greenbrae

Fiona Ma for Assembly – Soluna, 272 McAllister

No on 98/Yes on 99 – 1601 Telegraph Avenue, Oakland

League of Young Voters, Sandoval for Judge, progressive DCCC candidates and some Yes on F and No on Prop. 98 supporters – El Rio, 3158 Mission Street

And then there’s the Bay Guardian’s “Don’t Dodge the Drafts” election night party, 7-9 p.m. at Kilowatt, 3160 16th Street btw Valencia/Guerrero. Bring your voting stub for drink specials.

Election night parties

0

As always, Guardian political reporters will be in the field on Election Night, reporting live from City Hall and all the key parties via this Politics blog. We’re gathering that list of parties now (send yours to me at steve@sfbg.com to ensure you make the list) and we’ll post it by around this time tomorrow so you know where to go. And don’t forget to vote.

Dinner for Dr. Paul

0

It was a casual dinner affair for the supporters of Ron Paul on election night, with roughly thirty people showing up for dinner under the big screen at Thai Stick, 925 O’Farrell St. As the results came in from around the country, party-goers casually looked up from their animated conversations to remark at the TV screen.
George Gaboury, self-described “media support”, struggled with a projector and screen, but was finally able to set up a slide show of the groups’ past exploits – including the staged Ron Paul “TeaParty” in December. The projected video showed attendees throwing boxes with words like “Patriot Act” and “WTO” written on them off of a pier near the Ferry Building.
“For people who have been abused by the government for so long, this is almost therapy,” Gaboury said, watching the screen.

Super Fat Primary parties and coverage

0

Today promises to be the most dramatic California Democratic presidential primary vote in…well, maybe ever. To say that the future of our country hangs in the balance probably isn’t even hyperbole. And that’s a good thing because otherwise we’re looking at a fairly boring and inconsequential ballot, which the Guardian will covering live, as we have every election day since the birth of this whole Internet thing. That’s right, we were “live blogging” before anyone invented that stupid term. But I digress.

So check back here this evening as the numbers start rolling in from all the Super Fat Tuesday primaries. We’ll have coverage from all the election night parties in town and commentary on the larger issues at play and the unique role Californians are playing in shaping this race. Or if you want to attend the parties yourself, here’s a partial list of what we’ve come up with so far:

*** Barack Obama’s campaign seems to be throwing the swankiest party in town, renting out the Fairmont Hotel (950 Mason Street) Grand Ballroom (as well as The Avalon down in Hollywood) to host supporters. The candidate himself will be in Illinois, but this pair of parties seems to show that he’s already acting like the president-elect.

*** Hilliary Clinton’s campaign is going to be more muted locally with what sounds like a fairly low-key party at their local campaign headquarters at 1122 Howard Street. They seem to instead be blowing their wads on an event in a couple hours at the Ferry Building featuring ex-prez Bill Clinton and Mayor Gavin Newsom, sort of a Philanderer’s Ball in support of Clinton II, The Sequel.

*** Republican Ron Paul, who has a chance to get San Francisco’s Republican delegates thanks to a vocal and visible local campaign, is being feted at a campaign party at Thai Stick Restaurant, 925 O’Farrell Street @ Polk.

*** The most significant San Francisco campaign, which is seeking to pass the Prop. A parks bond, will be gathering at the Boudin Bakery on Jefferson Street in Fisherman’s Wharf.

* And finally, you can watch the results with staff from the Guardian at Kilowatt bar, 3160 16th Street in the Mission District.

Belly on up and take a big drink of democracy, baby.

Fisher fails

0

› news@sfbg.com

The crowd at El Rio, the Mission Street dive bar, was reaching capacity election night when Sup. Aaron Peskin climbed onto an unstable bar stool to announce a political victory that had been very much in doubt just a few weeks earlier.

“They said it could not be done. We drove a Hummer over Don Fisher!” Peskin said, referring to the Republican billionaire and downtown power broker who funded the fight against progressives in this election, as he has done repeatedly over the years.

Indeed, the big story of this election was the improbable triumph of environmentalists over car culture and grassroots activism over downtown’s money. The battleground was Muni reform measure Proposition A, which won handily, and the pro-parking Proposition H, which went down to resounding defeat.

It was, in some ways, exactly the sort of broad-based coalition building and community organizing that the progressives will need to help set the city’s agenda going into a year when control of the Board of Supervisors is up for grabs.

“I just felt it at El Rio — wow, people were jazzed,” said campaign consultant Jim Stearns, who directed the Yes on A–No on H campaign. “We brought in new energy and new people who will be the foot soldiers and field managers for the progressive supervisorial candidates in 2008.”

Maintaining the momentum won’t be simple: many of the people in El Rio that night will be on opposite sides next June, when Assemblymember Mark Leno challenges incumbent state senator Carole Migden, and they’ll have to put aside their differences just a few months later.

Downtown, while soundly defeated this time around, isn’t going to give up. And some parts of the winning coalition — Sup. Sean Elsbernd, for example, who helped with west-side voters, and the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), which helped bring more moderate voters into the fold — probably aren’t going to be on the progressive side in Nov. 2008.

But there’s no doubt the Yes on A–No on H campaign was a watershed moment. “I’ve never seen this kind of coalition between labor and environmentalists in the city,” Robert Haaland, a union activist who ran the field campaign, told us. “New relationships were built.”

During his victory speech, Peskin singled out the labor movement for high praise: “This would not have happened if it were not for our incredible brothers and sisters in the house of labor.” He also thanked the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition and environmental groups — and agreed that the labor-environmental alliance was significant and unique. “This is the first time in the seven years that I’ve been on the Board of Supervisors where I have seen a true coalition between labor and the environmentalists,” he said.

It’s not clear what we can expect in 2008 from Mayor Gavin Newsom, whom the latest results show finishing with more than 70 percent of the vote, better than some of his own consultants predicted. Newsom endorsed Yes on A–No on H, but he did nothing to support those stands, instead focusing on defeating Question Time proposition E, which narrowly failed.

Will Newsom continue to pay fealty to the biggest losers of this election, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and Fisher, who funded No on A–Yes on H and became this year’s antienvironmentalism poster child?

Or will Newsom — who has said little of substance about his plans for 2008 — step to the front of the transit-first parade and try to drive a wedge in the labor-environmentalist-progressive coalition that achieved this election’s biggest come-from-behind victory?

 

MONEY AND PEOPLE

The Yes on A–No on H campaign was a striking combination of good ground work by volunteers committed to alternative transportation and solid fundraising that allowed for many mailers and a sophisticated voter identification, outreach, and turnout effort.

“We worked the Muni a lot in the last days, particularly in areas where we thought there were a lot of young people,” Stearns said.

Polls commissioned by the Yes on A–No on H campaign showed that Prop. H, which would have deregulated parking and attracted more cars downtown, was winning by 54–39 percent as of Aug. 30. By Oct. 25 that lead had narrowed to 40–41 percent, a trend that gave the campaign hope that a big final push would produce a solid margin of victory, particularly given that more detailed polling questions showed support dropped fast once voters were educated on the real potential impacts of the measure.

Prop. A was much closer throughout the race, particularly given that both daily newspapers and left-leaning Sups. Gerardo Sandoval and Jake McGoldrick opposed it and even the Green Party couldn’t reach consensus on an endorsement.

“This could have meant a lot of arrows from a lot of directions,” Stearns said.

Campaign leaders Peskin, Haaland, and Stearns were so worried about Prop. A being defeated — and about not having the money for a big final telephone canvas in the final days — that they decided to make last-minute appeals for money.

“I’ve been a nervous wreck about this,” Haaland said of the campaign on election night.

On the evening of Nov. 3, he placed an anxious call to Peskin, suggesting that the latter make an appeal for money to Clint Reilly, a real estate investor who has often helped fund progressive efforts.

Peskin agreed and asked Stearns to help him make the pitch — and the two men drove to Reilly’s Seacliff home at 10 p.m. on Nov. 3.

“Prop. A just struck me as a nice, decent, positive message,” Reilly told the Guardian at the election night party, which he attended with his wife, Janet Reilly, a former State Assembly candidate.

Sharing Peskin and the campaign’s concerns that Prop. A was in trouble, Reilly cut a check for $15,000, which was enough to keep the phone banks going and help give the measure a narrow margin of victory.

But the money alone wasn’t enough for this mostly volunteer-run campaign.

“The push we made on the last five days of this campaign was just incredible,” campaign manager Natasha Marsh told us. “We had close to 500 volunteers on that last four days.”

 

A DIFFERENT CITY

The campaign also developed an extensive list of potentially supportive absentee voters — fully half of them Chinese speaking — who were then contacted with targeted messages.

Rosa Vong-Chie, who coordinated the voter outreach effort, said the messages about climate change, clean air, and Fisher’s involvement worked well with English-language voters. Chinese speakers didn’t care as much about Fisher, so campaign workers talked to them about improving Muni service.

The absentee-voter drive (and the push among Chinese-language voters) was unusual for a progressive campaign — and the fact that Prop. A did so well among typically conservative absentee voters was a testament to the effort’s effectiveness.

Elsbernd, one of the most conservative members of the Board of Supervisors, crossed many of his political allies to support the Yes on A–No on H campaign, and his involvement helped win over west-side voters and demonstrated that environmentalism and support for transit shouldn’t be just progressive positions.

“It’s great for public transit riders. It reinforces that this is a transit-first city…. Public transit is not an east-side issue,” Elsbernd told us, adding that the election was also a victory for political honesty. “It shows that people saw through the campaign rhetoric.”

The Fisher-funded rhetoric relied on simplistic appeals to drivers’ desire for more parking and used deceptive antigovernment appeals, trying to capitalize on what he clearly thought was widespread disdain for the Board of Supervisors.

“The attacks against the board didn’t work,” Peskin said, noting that in election after election the supervisors have shown that they “have much longer coattails than the chief executive of San Francisco.”

“I think it’s a pretty thorough rejection of Don Fisher’s agenda. He was not able to fool the voters,” said Tom Radulovich, director of Livable City and a BART director, who was active in the campaign. “This was about transit and what’s best for downtown. We should be very proud as a city.”

 

NOW WHAT?

The day after the El Rio party, at the monthly Car Free Happy Hour — a gathering of alternative-transportation activists and planners — there was excited talk of the previous night’s electoral triumph, but it quickly turned to the question of what’s next.

After all, progressives proved they could win in a low-turnout election against a poll-tested, attractive-sounding, and well-funded campaign. And given that the number of signatures needed to qualify an initiative for the ballot is a percentage of the voters in the last mayor’s race, it suddenly seems easy to meet that standard.

Some of the ideas floated by the group include banning cars on a portion of Market Street, having voters endorse bus rapid-transit plans and other mechanisms for moving transit quicker, levying taxes on parking and other auto-related activities to better fund Muni, and exempting bike, transit, and pedestrian projects from detailed and costly environmental studies (known as level of service, or LOS, reform to transportation planners).

“There’s a lot of potential to move this forward,” Haaland said later. “We can talk about creating a real transit-justice coalition.”

There’s also a downside to the low turnout: downtown can more easily place measures on the ballot or launch recall drives against sitting supervisors, which would force progressives to spend time and money playing defense.

But overall, for an election that could have been a total train wreck for progressives, the high-profile victory and the new coalitions suggest that the movement is alive and well, despite Newsom’s reelection.

Latest returns support Yes on A/No on H campaign

0

057-cover.web.jpg
Guardian illustration by Danny Hellman, from our Oct. 31 cover story
The big story of this election was the improbable triumph of environmentalists over car culture and grassroots activism over downtown’s money, a story being played out in the likely approval of the Muni reform measure Prop. A and lopsided defeat of the pro-parking Prop. H.
The latest elections results show Prop. A extending its narrow election night lead to a seven point margin and Prop. H being rejected by almost 64 percent of voters, despite its poll-tested simplicity and big time backing from Don Fisher and other downtown conservatives.
As expected, Mayor Gavin Newsom’s election night high of 77.46 percent of the early absentee votes has fallen to 72.47 and will probably continue its downward trend, while progressive favorite Quintin Mecke is slowly climbing out of the electoral cellar to third place with 6 percent now, a trend also likely to continue. Harold Hoogasian has 6.83 percent and Wilma Pang dropped to 5.6 – expect both to keep falling.
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, capping off a string of electoral failures since he took office.
But as I said, the big story is the Yes on A/No on H campaign, which threw a jubilant party at the El Rio last night.

Newsom’s party

0

By David Crockett
In what was maybe the least surprising news story since that guy from ‘N Sync announced he was gay, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom seemed headed for an easy reelection, even with the sparse returns on election night, when he and his supporters gathered at the Ferry Building.

“The best is yet to come,” Newsom told his followers, at the beginning and end of his speech, adding, “As great as we are, we can still be so much more.”