The voters have spoken in the 2019 election. And what have they said?
We have no idea.
Actually, that's not true. The electorate said all sorts of things, some of which contradict each other.
For instance, we have a Mayor in London Breed with a 70% affirmative vote.
(Granted, against a feeble field, but when late Mayor Ed Lee had a similar situation and only pulled 55%, it was seen as a sign of weakness.)
Voters also elected two extremely progressive candidates — DA Chesa Boudin and Supervisor Dean Preston -- who are likely to be diametrically opposed to the moderate Mayor. With Preston winning in D-5, the progressive supervisors will have a supermajority.
Good luck, Mayor Breed.
Former political consultant David Latterman calls it a “death knell” for the moderates. His point is that this is part of the regular political cycle in San Francisco. The progressives held sway in the early 2000’s and then the moderates came back in 2010. This, Latterman says, is the progressive lurch back.
However, is this where the City's head is? A Tulchin Research poll in April poll found that 48 percent of voters thought the City was headed in the wrong direction. And you know the complaints: rampant car break-ins; open drug use on Market Street; and, the number one concern of residents, homelessness.
Yet Boudin campaigned on focusing less on "quality of life" offenses, like public urination and tent camps. Is that really the message of this election? Hard to believe.
Voters also went big for the two increased housing ballot measures — over 70 percent for each. And yet, the progressive wing — some of who were part of the 2015 "Mission Moratorium" to stop new housing — tend to believe new housing equals gentrification.
So city residents support more housing and dislike chaos on the street, but have elected two politicians who don't share those views.
So we hear you, San Francisco voters. We're just having a little trouble with the mixed messages.