{"id":22132,"date":"2022-04-23T13:20:48","date_gmt":"2022-04-23T20:20:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/occupysf.net\/?p=22132"},"modified":"2022-04-23T13:21:28","modified_gmt":"2022-04-23T20:21:28","slug":"progressives-ignore-the-lessons-of-haney-campos-at-their-own-peril","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/2022\/04\/23\/progressives-ignore-the-lessons-of-haney-campos-at-their-own-peril\/","title":{"rendered":"Progressives ignore the lessons of Haney-Campos at their own peril"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"\/<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

by JOE ESKENAZI<\/a><\/strong> APRIL 21, 2022 (MissionLocal.org)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Late in the 49ers\u2019 55-10 demolition of Denver in the 1989 Super Bowl, broadcaster Pat Summerall wryly asked his partner, analyst John Madden \u201cNot much left to analyze, is there?\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

No, there was not. But, then, that was the final football game of the year and didn\u2019t factor into future contests. In San Francisco, where Matt Haney this week similarly trounced David Campos for a spot in the Assembly, there are two more elections this year alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are some factors that can be written off as unique to this week\u2019s election \u2014 an extremely low-turnout affair, dominated by older voters, and featuring two very particular candidates. There are many ways in which this week\u2019s Assembly race was sui generis. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But in many ways it was not \u2014 and the reaction from Campos and his surrogates has been anything but atypical. In the aftermath of his loss, Campos told his supporters that \u201cBig money has figured out how to win elections.\u201d His surrogates and backers chalked this up as a result of the corporate dollars poured into the race by outside interests such as the realtors (who spent big, but not as big as labor).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, $1.7 million in Independent Expenditure money \u2014 which Haney benefited from \u2014 is not nothing. That buys a lotta pretzels (or, glossy mailers ballyhooing a candidate or cynically lashing his opponent to Chesa Boudin. Incidentally, the successful weaponization of Boudin \u2014 on the city\u2019s more liberal east side \u2014 does not bode well for his citywide recall election in June). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

You can\u2019t claim $1.7 million \u2014 in a vote involving only half the city \u2014 wasn\u2019t impactful. But you also can\u2019t seriously claim it swung this election. Campos was heavily outspent, but he also raised damn near $1 million; if what he was saying had resonated with voters, he had the means to tell it to them. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This level of outside spending can indeed alter an election \u2014 but political professionals I spoke to estimated it could move the needle perhaps four to six percent. Campos, at last count, trailed by 26 percent. Even if \u201cbig money\u201d swung the vote by an improbable 10 percent, this was still a crushing outcome; it\u2019d be like the Niners winning only <\/em>41-10. What\u2019s more, Campos lost big in districts of San Francisco where his ideological allies have recently won big. Campos lost by 10 percent in the Mission. <\/em>Clearly there was much more going on here. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, on a citywide level at least, \u201cbig money\u201d has long<\/em> known how to win elections; Gavin Newsom in 2003 outspent Matt Gonzalez by a factor of 10, and that\u2019s just a relatively recent example. This is something progressive candidates have long had to factor into their campaigns as a given; to chalk up this week\u2019s outcome to the realtors\/tech bros\/media done us wrong <\/em>reveals an unwillingness to learn from specific elements of this election and a staunch resistance to introspection. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, ever thus<\/a>. Progressives, as ever<\/a>, remain overly clubby and unwilling\/unable to expand their base. Progressives, as ever<\/a>, remain overly doctrinaire and all too willing to make an infidel out of individuals or groups who disagree with them on only a small minority of issues. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

After a shellacking of this magnitude, introspection is due. The question is, do progressives do introspection?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIf you are going straight, hard progressive, you appeal to about one-third of this town. If you can\u2019t swing that bridge to middle-class liberals, you are fucked,\u201d sums up Supervisor Aaron Peskin. \u201cAnd that\u2019s what happened.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

You may recall national hot take-meisters credulously claiming that San Francisco\u2019s February recall of three Board of Education members was a death knell for Democrats in the forthcoming national midterms. Dios mio, man. Democrats may well take it on the chin (hard to see it not <\/em>happening), but the former does not augur the latter. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, before making any grandiose pronouncements about a political sea change based on this week\u2019s election, it\u2019s worth noting that, as of Thursday, some 62,000 votes have been tallied \u2014 just 23 percent of Assembly District 17\u2019s 269,000 registered voters. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\u2019s more, data from the Department of Elections from earlier this month reveals that, among the first 50,000 of those voters to return their ballots \u2014 the vast majority of the votes so far tallied \u2014 a disproportionately high 62 percent were from San Franciscans aged 50 or above (voters of this age only represent 41 percent of the electorate). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, yes, there is a hell of a lot to be gleaned from this election rout (or willfully ignored). But one cannot wholly write off that this is an infinitesimal turnout in an off-season, special election that was dominated by aging voters. That\u2019s not a favorable field for most any progressive candidate \u2014 and, demonstrably, an especially treacherous one for Campos. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Candidates matter, and the Haney-vs.-Campos contest is a very specific matchup that led to very specific outcomes. Campos was always going to be facing an uphill battle here: The demographics of AD-17 have not changed in his favor; he has been out of public office for years; and, to be frank, his comportment while in public office led to simmering resentments culminating in this week\u2019s heavy loss. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In March<\/a>, we wrote that Campos had a penchant for throwing political elbows that had led to decades-long political grudges. Among other telltale signs of this, he was not backed by a majority of LGBTQ outfits nor San Francisco labor unions (more on that in a moment). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

And while that was true, in retrospect we did not adequately articulate the point: Campos, in his time as a San Francisco public servant, picked up a reputation for oft-needless antagonism and had a propensity to wear on friends and foes alike<\/a>. As a result his coalition was weaker this time around (most importantly, again, with labor) \u2014 and participants in the Independent Expenditure campaigns targeting him have described the time and resources put into sinking Campos as the settling of old scores.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is, to put it mildly, not Haney\u2019s M.O. In March, a longtime city political player told us that \u201cEverybody who sits down with Matt Haney thinks that Matt Haney agrees with them. They may end up being surprised by how he votes. But he\u2019s pretty nice about that, too.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This resonated with city insiders. And it may come off as condescending, but the politicos I spoke to didn\u2019t really mean it to be. There are worse things for a candidate than being likable \u2014 and being unlikable for the sake of unlikability is no benefit. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, in addition to the demographics of this electorate, the demographics of the candidates were somewhat unique and not likely to be re-created. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But their platforms and campaigns? That\u2019s different. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Haney\u2019s \u201cevolution\u201d into a full-throated advocate for more housing construction opened him to charges of political opportunism. That\u2019s to be expected, but it\u2019s hardly revelatory for a left-leaning San Francisco politician to also be pro-development. Construction didn\u2019t exactly stall in District 6 under Haney\u2019s predecessors Jane Kim and Chris Daly. Longstanding city politicos pointed out that, like Daly, Haney can claim to be 100-percent pro-renter and 100-percent pro-development \u2014 which is a useful trick in this city of ours. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

And there is a precedent for a left-on-left battle of the sort we\u2019ve just witnessed: Multiple longtime campaign operatives likened the Haney-Campos race (and outcome) to the 2003 contest when Matt Gonzalez outflanked Tom Ammiano, and stormed into the runoff against Newsom. Ammiano was an older and more doctrinaire progressive than Gonzalez. And Gonzalez, like Haney, had a youthful vibe, an enthusiastic campaign \u2014 and developer backing in the personage of the Residential Builders Association. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On a local level, it\u2019s still not a winning proposition for an aspiring Board candidate to call for more market-rate construction in his or her<\/em> district (See: Josefowitz, Nick, 2018<\/a>). On a citywide level, however, it\u2019s a no-brainer: It\u2019s hard to come up with counter-arguments for broad, ambiguous calls for more housing. Haney read the room. Progressives will have to do this, too. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is not enough to discount why construction is a negative. Progressives, on a citywide level, will have to have answers for the many city residents who, even with decent incomes, cannot dream of buying a home and cementing a future here. Progressive solutions will have to be that \u2014 solutions. It\u2019s not enough anymore to deflect. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIf you are going straight, hard progressive, you appeal to about one-third of this town. If you can\u2019t swing that bridge to middle-class liberals, you are fucked. And that\u2019s what happened.\u201d SUPERVISOR AARON PESKIN<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When I asked leading progressives what they\u2019d tell people who can\u2019t plan for futures in San Francisco \u2014 people for whom the strident simplicity of \u201cbuild more housing\u201d holds a tantalizing appeal \u2014 I receive a barrage of responses. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among them: Combat evictions, squeeze out inclusionary housing in any and all ways possible, establish a vacancy tax, and lean heavily into social housing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

None of these is as cogent as \u201cbuild more housing.\u201d In the case of social housing, it\u2019s incumbent to explain how this can actually come to pass rather than being the next iteration of a gas station or vacant lot left to molder for a decade in hopes of an elusive 100-percent affordable development. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are many individual factors that went into Haney\u2019s victory. Among them, his field director Han Zou \u2014 who also helmed Haney\u2019s 2018 evisceration of Sonja Trauss and Christine Johnson <\/a>\u2014 is clearly a savant. But the broad strokes of his road to higher office are recreatable. A citywide or state candidate could run on progressive issues, with a progressive-style ground game, and also call for augmented housing construction \u2014 leading to a broad coalition and across-the-spectrum labor support. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The role of labor in Haney\u2019s victory has been deeply overlooked. It may be the most important factor of all. He rolled up backing from not only progressive-friendly unions like the SEIU, but the (intuitively) pro-construction building trades. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There were a variety of reasons for this. A number of union higher-ups had had less-than-thrilling relationships with Campos (See: grudges, longstanding). Haney was well-liked for his ability to amalgamate coalitions. He was seen as someone Gov. Gavin Newsom wouldn\u2019t <\/em>go out of his way to thwart. The money and resources and manpower from the city\u2019s unions were a pivotal factor. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe did not support Matt because of some pro-housing line,\u201d said a political operative with close ties to the building trades. \u201cThat\u2019s labor erasure. By virtue of his being in District 6, being heir to the projects approved by Jane Kim and, in a way, Chris Daly, you had a situation where he was going to be in the center of the development storm. He handled it well. He worked with us to ensure that when development happened, it was going to provide real benefits.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two of David Campos\u2019 key issues in this most recent race were enacting Medicare for All and ending hunger in California. Noble goals: But not what city voters are looking for in 2022. Future candidates, of all political stripes, would do well to listen to voters\u2019 questions. And address them. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe need to have a snappy answer to the vexing issues du jour: Those are housing\/housing affordability and homelessness,\u201d Peskin concedes. \u201cIt\u2019s got to be better than \u2018we\u2019re trying.\u2019\u201d <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by JOE ESKENAZI APRIL 21, 2022 (MissionLocal.org) Late in the 49ers\u2019 55-10 demolition of Denver in the 1989 Super Bowl, broadcaster Pat Summerall wryly asked his partner, analyst John Madden \u201cNot much left to analyze, is there?\u201d  No, there was not. But, then, that was the final football game of the… Continue reading → <\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22132"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22132"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22132\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22134,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22132\/revisions\/22134"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22132"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22132"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22132"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}