by Randy Shaw on September 30, 2024 (BeyondChron.org)
Daniel Lurie
Can Lurie Maintain Momentum?
One year ago, Daniel Lurie announced his candidacy for San Francisco mayor. Few gave him much of a chance.
Critics said San Francisco would never elect an outsider. That few voters had even heard of Daniel Lurie. San Francisco voters were also said to oppose millionaires’ buying public office, which Lurie was accused of doing.
Today, Lurie may well be the current frontrunner. He has at least as good a chance as his rivals to be elected mayor. Lurie’s increased strength is clear both from polls and increasing attacks from Breed and Farrell supporters.
Let’s break down how Lurie’s progress has happened.
Underestimating the “Outsider” Message
I always felt Daniel Lurie’s outsider message could bring him victory. But nobody I spoke to outside Lurie himself thought he had a chance.
Critics argued that San Francisco had never elected a political outsider. When I would bring up wealthy outsiders like former mayors Michael Bloomberg of New York City and Richard Riordan of Los Angeles, or Illinois’s current billionaire governor J.B Pritzker, I was told that San Francisco was different.
Fair enough. We should look at past voting history in assessing races.
But Mayor Breed has been unusually vulnerable for an incumbent San Francisco mayor. Voters are very unhappy with the city’s direction. The mayor’s war with Farrell—which has intensified— —meant that a third “moderate” candidate could win by getting the lion’s share of second place votes from other candidates.
That’s the path that has boosted Lurie’s to current front runner.
Signs that Lurie was striking a chord with voters have been clear.
As I wrote in February, “Lurie’s big picture theme that San Francisco can do better resonates with voters. So does his core message, ‘It’s time for a new era of accountable leadership,’ which reflects both his and Safai’s view that the mayor’s race is about who can best manage the city. Lurie is strongest speaking to small groups and is spending a lot of time in such meetings.” (See “San Francisco’s Unusual Mayor’s Race,” February 20, 2024).
I wrote in March that Breed’s strategy of avoiding ranked choice voting and attacking Farrell had risks: “Lurie and Farrell have already proved they 1. Can raise enough money to win 2. Can attract key supporters and 3. Can provide moderates with a viable alternative to Aaron Peskin. The argument that only London Breed can stop Peskin is no longer credible.”
In April I again argued that the Breed-Farrell rancor could hurt both.
In June I noted how Lurie and Farrell “both felt voters were concerned enough about closing open air drug markets to offer a written strategy. That at least says they see closing drug markets as a top priority.” Mayor Breed’s failure to close open air drug markets has continued to hurt her chances.
Lurie has been the chief beneficiary of the acrimony between Breed and Farrell. That’s why with a month before in-person election day the campaigns backing Farrell and Breed are going all out to raise Lurie’s negatives.
Is it too late?
The Anti-Lurie Attacks
Opponents claim Lurie has never had a real job (I am not linking to any of the attacks to avoid further promoting them). His 15-year tenure at Tipping Point is said not to count because it was a nonprofit he headed and funded. Farrell has also highlighted Lurie’s lack of employment since leaving Tipping Point in 2019.
Breed backers have translated Lurie’s alleged lack of managerial experience into a claim he is not ready to run a major city. Critics see Lurie’s “outsider” mantra as reflecting someone who has no idea how to manage San Francisco.
Opponents also claim Lurie has vastly overhyped his experience in building affordable housing. His 833 Bryant project is said to not be a model for future development but an outlier. Tipping Point also donated to a nonprofit group that then misused funds; this is said to mean his claim for promoting accountability is hypocritical.
The biggest Lurie critique is that he is buying the election. He has given over $6 million to support his campaign along with his mother’s widely discussed contribution of $1 million. It’s been pointed out that Lurie has no limit on how much he can and will spend.
Rivals Ignored Lurie
As the campaign has unfolded, new problems for Breed and Farrell have emerged. Breed’s connection to the troubled Dream Keeper Initiative and the shooting of a 49er in Union Square came at the worst possible time for her campaign. The former weakened the mayor’s claim that her re-election is an antidote to corruption; the latter undermined her message that her public safety strategy is working.
The alleged ethical problems with Farrell are highly technical and even misleading (the SF Chronicle attacked him for getting funding to open school playgrounds on weekends. Really?). I understand that complying with campaign funding rules is necessary. I just don’t think most voters care. Nevertheless, Farrell faces a death by a thousand cuts problem around ethical claims which is why he is so aggressively challenging them.
Lurie has gotten a pretty free ride up to now. Moderates have instead been busy blaming Aaron Peskin for every problem San Francisco has experienced since he took office in 2001. Peskin has been unfairly misrepresented and his track record fictionalized by his critics. These false attacks have hurt Peskin’s poll numbers while allowing Lurie to avoid being the target of negative campaigns.
Will the Attacks on Lurie Work?
If Lurie were vulnerable to attacks on his outsider campaign he wouldn’t be trending upward this late in the campaign. I also don’t think voters care that his campaigns is self-financed. If they did we would not have so many millionaires in public office.
Attacks on Lurie’s tenure at Tipping Point could be more effective. Social media wrongly blames much of the city’s problems on San Francisco nonprofits. Even though this corruption impacts less than 5% of city-funded groups. When FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried went down it was seen as personal, not systemic. Same with Donald Trump’s fraud convictions. Yet corruption in any nonprofit is framed as reflecting a failed “nonprofit industrial complex.”
Lurie’s connection to a nonprofit—originally thought to be a strength—could hurt him. Fortunately for Lurie a new campaign by nonprofit groups laying out the truth about the sector’s positive influence could help him.
Are Voters Focused on Mayor’s Race?
The Harris-Walz campaign may also help Lurie repel the escalating opposition attacks. San Francisco voters are understandably riveted on the presidential race. People are phoning, going to Nevada and otherwise reflecting an electorate that sees the mayoral election as a sidelight to the national battle for America’s future.
Voters focused on defeating Donald Trump may ignore the massive number of anti-Lurie mailers and social media posts. I don’t see voter interest in the mayor’s race rising much given the historic importance of the presidential election.
If Lurie wins the election his opponents will regret not attacking him earlier (as they did toward each other). Let’s see how the campaigns roll out as we head to Election Day.
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
