by Randy Shaw on October 7, 2024 (BeyondChron.org)
Peskin Campaign is Key Test for SF Progressives
When Aaron Peskin joined the San Francisco mayor’s race many assumed he would get at least 25% of first place votes. Consider:
*In 1999, progressive Tom Ammiano got 25% of the vote running as a write-in candidate in the November general election. He then got 40% in the runoff against powerful incumbent Mayor Willie Brown.
*In 2003 progressive Matt Gonzalez got 47% of the vote despite being outspent 10-1 by winner Gavin Newsom.
*In the 2018 special election progressive Mark Leno got 49.45% of the vote against winner London Breed (24.5% in first place votes).
Peskin has won all of the endorsements typically awarded to progressives. No credible progressive group opposes him.
So why do most polls have him under 20% of first place votes (last week’s two polls—Grow SF and David Binder— had him getting 18% and 16%)?
I have five possible theories. And a reason to believe Peskin still has a chance.
The Polls Are Wrong
Many Peskin backers believe the polls are wrong. They see progressive young voters and tenants less likely to be reached and/or to respond to polls. Young progressives tend to focus late on local elections so they would not be included in polls. There’s also belief that Cantonese speakers, who have long supported Peskin, are under counted.
I’ve questioned poll results that found only a third of self-identified “progressives” would make Peskin their first choice. But I have no clear evidence that polls disproportionately under count him.
Wrong Year to Be an Insider
Peskin knows how to get stuff done at City Hall better than anyone. He’s passed more legislation than any supervisor in city history. He has a proven track record of knowing how to work with colleagues to get results.
In most years Peskin’s experience would be a plus. But many voters see the city in deep trouble. Daniel Lurie is spending millions arguing that “insiders” like Peskin are the problem. Lurie’s outsider message has proved popular, and while impacting Breed and others it particularly hurts Peskin.
Public Safety Over Tenant Protections
Peskin has pushed to close open air drug markets and has a longtime positive relationship with the police. But public safety is not his political strong suit. That public safety is the top issue in this race does not play to Peskin’s strength.
What sets Peskin apart in this race is his long support for tenant protections. He is currently sponsoring legislation to vastly expand San Francisco rent control should California pass Prop 33. Peskin’s position is in line with the California Democratic Party, which endorsed the pro-tenant measure.
Prop 33 and tenant protections have barely been mentioned in candidate debates. The focus is on public safety, understandable given that its the top issue among voters across the city. This has to hurt Peskin’s numbers.
Targeting Peskin for Attacks
Peskin has clearly been hurt by well-funded “Anyone But Peskin” attacks against him. Peskin is blamed for every problem San Francisco has experienced since he first took office in 2001.
Most of these attacks rely on a fictionalized history of San Francisco’s past two decades. They ignore that Peskin always needed six or eight votes to pass legislation. And that mayors signed these measures into law (or voters enacted them).
Aaron Peskin has backed more laws positively impacting low-income people than any other supervisor in the city’s history. He has the strongest record of protecting tenants of any candidate.
It’s telling that someone with this background is being chiefly blamed for San Francisco’s problems.
San Francisco since 2001 has been primarily shaped by Mayors Willie Brown, Gavin Newsom, Ed Lee and London Breed. Peskin has never had the power to decide homeless policies. Nor to decide where to allocate police officers so that they would permanently close open air drug markets. Yet his critics blame him for both problems, ignoring the mayor’s role.
Peskin was repeatedly elected Board President by his colleagues. From 2005-2009 he was elected unanimously. You don’t get unanimous support without the trust of your colleagues.
I have no problem with people opposing Peskin because they disagree with his views. I object to falsifying his history. I also object to blaming a supervisor for problems that are chiefly if not exclusively the mayor’s responsibility.
The Erosion of the Progressive Base?
Do Peskin’s poll numbers reflect decades of San Francisco gentrification making the city less progressive? It’s not clear that more affluent homeowners and tenants are less on the left. For example, the upscale Haight-Ashbury neighborhood is represented by Supervisor Dean Preston, the Board’s only DSA member.
But new generations of activists have been steadily priced out of San Francisco.
I don’t see the crowds of activist volunteers in the Peskin campaign that were with Ammiano, Gonzalez, or Art Agnos in 1987. Some are working on the presidential campaign. All of the mayoral campaigns have fewer volunteers than in the past but progressive campaigns depend on people power.
The “progressive” vs. “moderate” lines are not as clear as in the past. The 2024 election is not about “Downtown vs Neighborhoods.” Nor is it about which candidate supports rent control on vacant apartments. What should be top progressive priorities like building apartments in all neighborhoods and protecting working-class residents from sidewalk drug activities are embraced more by “moderates.”
Peskin has tried to draw sharp lines around “dark money” and “billionaire” funders of rivals. But voters are less concerned about funding sources than specific policy differences.
If the left wants to elect Aaron Peskin it must sharply ramp up its organizing, mobilizing and outreach. That process will raise his first choice votes to expected levels and increase his currently paltry second place votes (though the latter will be harder). Peskin’s chances ultimately rest on a combination of increasing his own vote share while benefiting from rising negatives for Breed, Farrell and Lurie. Peskin needs voters to give him another look.
Will this happen? It’s a longshot. But it’s too soon to count him out.
Randy Shaw
Randy Shaw is the Editor of Beyond Chron and the Director of San Francisco’s Tenderloin Housing Clinic, which publishes Beyond Chron. Shaw’s latest book is Generation Priced Out: Who Gets to Live in the New Urban America. He is the author of four prior books on activism, including The Activist’s Handbook: Winning Social Change in the 21st Century, and Beyond the Fields: Cesar Chavez, the UFW and the Struggle for Justice in the 21st Century. He is also the author of The Tenderloin: Sex, Crime and Resistance in the Heart of San Francisco
