Anyone but Lee

The incumbent is falling fast in the polls, and it's actually possible for Avalos to win
|
(198)
Down he goes.

tredmond@sfbg.com

Two weeks ago, the race for mayor of San Francisco seemed in the bag. Mayor Ed Lee was so far ahead in most polls that everyone else looked like an also-ran. A Bay Citizen simulation of ranked-choice voting showed Lee getting enough seconds and thirds to emerge easily as the winner. His approval rating with voters was above 70 percent. The money was pouring in to his campaign and to the coffers of independent expenditure committees promoting him.

But that was before the voter-fraud scandals, OccupySF, Sup. John Avalos appearing on national TV, a controversial veto, Sup. David Chiu getting the endorsement of the San Francisco Chronicle, and an attack on City Attorney Dennis Herrera backfiring.

"It's changing," Corey Cook, a political scientist at the University of San Francisco, told us. "I don't know whether it's tightening up, but it's certainly changing."

One campaign consultant, who asked not to be named, was more blunt: "The Lee campaign is one bad news story away from free-fall."

That's not to say Lee is going to lose, or even that he's anything but the clear front-runner. But over the past week, as Lee has taken a series of hits, supporters of the other candidates — particularly Herrera and Avalos — are starting to wonder: Could somebody else really win?

The answer, of course, is yes — anything can happen in the week before an election. But defeating Mayor Lee will take a confluence of events and strategies that starts with a big progressive turnout — and with voters who don't like the idea of an incumbent with ties to a corrupt old political machine carefully allocating their three ranked choices.

 

NO SURPRISE

So far, there's been no crushing "October surprise" — no single event or revelation that can change the course of the election. And the impact of anything that happens in the next few days will be blunted by the fact that 27,000 absentee ballots have already arrived at the Department of Elections.

By all accounts, Lee's campaign and the somewhat sketchy independent expenditure groups that are working in parallel, if not in concert, have done an impressive job of identifying and turning out absentee voters. Local consultants from most of the campaigns agree that at least 20 percent of the final turnout will be Chinese voters — and Lee will get at least 75 and as much of 90 percent of that vote.

But as Cook notes, there are still "huge undecideds" for this late in a race. And while Lee was polling above 30 percent a few weeks ago, by most accounts his numbers have been dropping steadily. One recent poll shows him falling 10 points in the past two weeks, leaving him closer to 20 percent than 30 percent.

"If the election were held three weeks from now, he'd lose," said one consultant who asked not to be identified by name.

What's happened? A confluence of factors have put the incumbent in a bad light.

The voter-fraud allegations have made headlines and the district attorney is discussing a criminal investigation. Although Lee and his campaign weren't directly involved — the possibly illegal efforts to steer voters to Lee were run by one of the IEs — the last thing a politician wants to see in the waning days before an election are the words "voter fraud" and "criminal investigation."

And the allegation — that Lee supporters in Chinatown filled out ballots for absentee voters then collected them for later delivery — play right into Lee's weakness. While voters generally have good impressions of his work at City Hall, the fact that he's connected to sleazy operators and tied to the old discredited Brown machine continues to haunt him. And this sort of activity simply re-enforces that perception.

Comments

Calling all Ed Lee trolls. Please report to the SF Bay Guardian, immediately!

Posted by Chris Daly on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 7:46 pm

Not because he is all that great, but because he isn't a progressive.

Ed Lee may not be the best choice, but he isn't a Daly, Peskin, Avalos, Marr, MIrkirimi child.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 11:18 am

He isn't an ego, he's not an ideolog, he's self-effacing and modest. TheCity needs a Mayor who gets on with the job of building economic security for the City. The worst thing we could have is someone on an ideological mission who can't relate to all factions of the City.

Lee/Dufty/Chui

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 11:34 am

yes, to the point of complete subservience to the folks who put him up to running

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 1:19 pm

that is exactly what the voters want. We've had enough of Feinstein, Brown and Newsom (even though they all endorse Lee). It's time for someone who is quietly competent.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 1:35 pm

And just where are the links to these imaginary poll results that you are ridiculously spouting?

Posted by Aragorn on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 2:43 pm

is easily enough to secure victory in a wide field like this.

You must be very new here if you missed the various discussions of them.

I'll let you do your own homework. My role here is to ensure that people have the facts to make informed decisions.

Who are you voting for?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 2:53 pm

informed decisions, what is keeping you from offering it again,? (That is, showing that what you are claiming is a fact, not as assertion as it stands .) Instead of ensuring people have the facts, you are telling them to go find them themselves. How is that fulfilling your self-proclaimed role?

Can you give me the facts via proof?

Posted by Michael W. on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 3:17 pm

And people who do their own research are more likely to retain the information.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 3:28 pm

Total fucking lie.

Posted by Aragorn on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 3:41 pm

since the polls have been discussed here many times, readers know who to believe here.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 4:00 pm

(And then engage in intellectual dishonesty by demanding that the contributors who question your claims, and merely seek proof, are the ones who have the burden of proof to disprove your claims?) Yes, I know who to believe here.

Posted by Michael W. on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 4:12 pm
Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 4:18 pm

but I don't see how it detracts from my questions; and I was not claiming anything, so why should I have to cite anything? I was asking you to provide me with the info you said you here to ensure that everyone has. (And then insult me when I ask you to provide it.)

When one starts to focus on misspellings or engage in ad hominems; it tends to show he/she has no real argument.

Posted by Michael W. on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 4:34 pm

You were claiming that I was wrong that all the polls so far show Lee with over 30% support.

Yet you cannot cite one single poll showing that.

While everyone here knows about the polls so far.

So who do you think readers believe here? Where's your proof?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 4:43 pm

I merely asked for you to provide me with the facts that you said you wanted to ensure everyone has. Based on your inability and/or refusal to do so, and your tactics in responding to me, I can only gather you really do not have the facts that you claim you want to share.

Posted by Michael W. on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 4:58 pm
Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 5:37 pm

Your original idiot claim was that Ed Lee is somehow towering in the polls and is still above 30%. We pointed out that there aren't any recent voter polls that have been made public, and that you need to show us newer polls to back up your assertion.

Whereupon you launched into the same lame bullshit tactic that all trolls use when they are challenged to cite evidence to prove their point and they don't have any; which is to launch into immediately demanding that your -opponent- prove a point that he or she never made in the first place.

So getting back to the subject at hand, what poll or other data can you show us, generated in the last week, which proves that Ed Lee is as high in the polls as he was a month ago?

Simple question.

How about actually answering it, instead of lamely trying to deflect attention away from your lack of credible evidence, with incredibly juvenile diversion tactics.

Posted by Aragorn on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 7:09 pm

in making sure that I, or anyone else here, have the facts? You would rather have us find them? Again, how is this fulfilling your role here?

"And people who do their own research are more likely to retain the information."

And this is claim is based on?.....

So you say your role here is to give people the facts, but then claim it is in their best interest to do their own research?!

I will ask you once again, in your role here on this blog, to provide me with the information that I need to make a informed decision. If you cannot or will not provide such information, I can only arrive at the conclusion that your claims are merely assertions.

Posted by Michael W. on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 3:52 pm

it's unlikely that you would understand any advice you are given.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 4:10 pm

and therefore must resort to ad hominems.

So much for role here in ensuring people get the "facts".

Posted by Michael W. on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 4:24 pm

but I suggest you read LL's post carefully for more insight.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 4:29 pm

so there is no need for me to provide any evidence. I was asking for you to function in your role here and give me the necessary information to make an informed choice. You, in turn, have: 1.) told me to go find the "facts" myself; 2.) implied that I am an idiot; 3.) attacked my spelling in a post while avoiding the substance of the post; and 4.) now tell me to read a post by another contributor for "insight", which is different from supplying the fact you claim you want to provide.

I have not found you very helpful in your role as a provider of facts.

Posted by Michael W. on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 4:51 pm

say you are disputing?

Because I'm not sufre anyone else can.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 5:36 pm

to help make an informed decision. I asked for those facts and you failed to give them, opting instead to engage in ad hominems and word play.

I have not received any information from you, --are the "facts" you say are available via a search on google the polls dated back on October 17th? How useful or reliable are those?-- and have thus failed to convince that Lee is a candidate to vote for.

Imagine if you actually made an effort to provide the facts, instead engaging in behavior associated with internet trolls. Perhaps I, and other people, would have considered Lee.

Posted by Michael W. on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 4:58 pm

Lee's the love child of Willie Brown and Rose Pak... ;)

Posted by 'anonymous' on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 11:34 am

Say NO to the 1% !!

Tell the billionaires that our democracy is NOT for sale!!

Vote NO on Prop C
Vote NO on Prop D

1) Avalos for Mayor
2) Baum for Mayor
3) Anyone but Lee!*

*I will probably hold my nose and vote for Yee for #3. Vote your conscience.

(*Adachi's mayoral campaign is floundering, as evidenced by his attack on Avalos, so I'm not too concerned about it.)

Posted by Lisa on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 6:03 pm

From the Green Party endorsement page~

"The School Board recently adopted a new school assignment system that makes proximity to a school the second most important factor in school assignments. Students who live in communities with worse schools (typically low-income communities) have the opportunity, if their parents want, to choose better schools that are further away. After these students are assigned, other students who live near the best schools could take the remaining slots."

"If Prop H passed and was adopted by the School Board, it would lead to increased segregation and inequality in our schools, and no choice for parents who live near bad schools. Therefore, the Green Party strongly opposes it."

http://www.sfgreenparty.org/endorsements/24-november-2011-endorsements

Posted by Lisa on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 6:45 pm

Third-party spending in San Francisco mayor’s race exceeds $313K~

file:///D:/Third-party%20spending%20in%20San%20Francisco%20mayor’s%20race%20exceeds%20$313K%20%20Joshua%20Sabatini%20%20Under%20the%20Dome%20%20San%20Francisco%20Examiner.mht#ixzz1czgZmzTV

Posted by Lisa on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 6:46 pm

Moritz, Hume, Hellman, Conway top list of 2011 individual campaign contributors. Great piece by Oliver Luby at FCJ~

http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/3143/hellman-committee-on-jobs-p...

Posted by Lisa on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 6:06 pm

Chronicle Columnist Andy Ross hanging out and eating risotto with George Gascon the week before the election: wtf?

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=255741631140552&set=a.25574152780...

Posted by Guest on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 8:07 pm
Posted by Guest on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 8:12 pm

Is the DA not allowed to meet with journalists now?

Posted by guest on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 8:21 pm

Does that look like a "meeting" to you?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 8:27 pm
Yep

Sure does.

Posted by guest on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 8:41 pm

Gascon will have oodles of time to judge risotto cooking contests with Andy Ross after he loses the election next week.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 9:34 pm

Aren't you all glad you supported this bogus election system? It certainly is helping keep progressives out of office.

Left right and centre should join forces to throw it away no matter what the activists who sold this junk system. I mean look how well it worked in Oakland!

Posted by Turkey Juan on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 9:27 pm

The system worked well. Yes, Quan screwed up with the handling of the Occupy encampment, and she deserves the criticism. But it's not the fault of IRV.

And it would have been ten times worse with Perata. I'm hearing a lot of people on the far right -even on hate radio -suddenly concerned about police practices. Except they're not, of course. They're seeing an opportunity to attack a generally progressive mayor, and a fair election system. These people don't care one bit about police brutality, and if someone like Perata was leading the crackdown, these same people would be cheering him on.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 10:00 pm

Should get impeached for her ever changing view and excuses around the occupy camp ground.

It's true that the many on the right are getting a laugh out of Quan's epic wishy washy fail. But Quan has no one to blame but herself.

She ran on her being a lefty activist, that included trying to make ebonics a language, and demand intellectual ghetto departments at UCB.

She then got elected, some things she has done of note is hound her police chief out of office, then complain that the new one she liked better was doing things she didn't know about.

She said she was down with the occupy campers and wanted to give them toilets, then she tried to kick them out while she was claiming she didn't know what that entailed.

If you are complaining that the AM radio right is full of hypocritical idiots, and it is, then you might also want to develop some awareness around her too, so as to not look so... equally rote.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 11:25 am

It was supposed to start yesterday - don't know if it's live yet.

It's not even taken a year for Oaklanders to see through her and see there's nothing there.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 11:39 am

I live in SF, so I'm not as finely tuned in to Oakland politics (though still probably more tuned in than 90% of Oaklanders). But right now, I'm still inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. I think she's struggling to do the right thing. The police today were on their best behavior (almost nowhere to be seen actually), and I think that's a direct result of her trying to make amends for what happened with Scott Olsen. The other thing is that there doesn't seem to be a better alternative. If she gets recalled, then what? Let's see how this plays out from here on out. If things go badly, I could change my mind. Yet something makes me feel that citizens excersizing their rights are safer with Quan than they would be with say, Jerry Brown... or Ed Lee.

And speaking of Scott Olsen, I find it odd that people are calling for Quan's head, but not the cop who did it! Let's be realistic. The mayor does bear some responsibility. She could have handled it way better. But she didn't order the tear gas cannister attack, and she probably didn't conceive that something like that was going to happen. Maybe she should have had the foresight to see the makings of a police riot, and that was certainly a mistake on her part.

But the cop, for his part, is a criminal. That attack was deliberate. He and other cops looked like they were aiming to hurt people. He should be fired and put on trial.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 10:59 pm

Make sure you put Herrara on your vote somewhere. Herrara has a real chance to win. I would love for John to be our mayor, but it's just not real. I've endorsed the following:

#1 Jeff Adachi
#2 Dennis Herrara
#3 John Avalos

Ross Mirkirami for Sheriff

chicken john

Posted by Chicken John on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 9:38 pm

There's no point in beating Ed Lee with someone who's no better. Avalos and Yee are still the only candidates worth voting for. After that, I'd even rank the odious Jeff Adachi over Herrera.

And it's Herrera, not Herrara. Once is a typo. 4 times in the same post is ignorance.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 10:05 pm

Herrera would just make the same city destroying deals with Wall Street real estate developers that the Brown/Lee machine is making. What's the point in replacing one developer sellout with another one.

Yee has just as good a chance at winning as Herrera does, and he is far more progressive. Herrera is supported by Republicans. And I don't see the new Occupy fire lending any momentum to Herrera, while Yee is definitely benefiting from it.

So let's replace the name Dennis Herrera with Leland Yee.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 10:27 pm

Herrera screwed thousands of tenants in Parkmerced out of secure homes on behalf of the Wall Street developer Fortress.

Herrera screwed 33,000 Bayview voters out of their right to put a measure on the ballot to stop another Wall Street developer (Lennar corporation) from destroying their neighborhood and making thousands of them deadly ill with cancer, mesothelioma, asthma, and other diseases.

Herrera tried to force the Bayview to accept a polluting fossil fuel power plant in their neighborhood so that he could get rid of a polluting plant in his -own- neighborhood, and thereby -further- enrich real estate developers who wanted to cash in by doubling the value of their properties in Potrero Hill and Pier 70.

And Herrera has spent his entire tenure as City Attorney making a big public show of how he supposedly fights PG&E, when in reality he has done absolutely nothing real whatsoever to stop PG&E from taking the City to the cleaners.

There is nothing 'progressive' about Dennis Herrera.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 10:58 am

I dont understand how people keep perpetuating the misconception that Avalos has no chance. Did you not read this article? it mentions that a recent poll(which i know hasn't been released yet) puts Avalos as a solid 2nd in 1st choice votes, far ahead of Herrera, and 6 points behind Ed Lee. The same poll has Herrera overcoming him during IRV, perhaps because there is this misconception that he has no chance.

It's becoming clear that the Avalos not having a chance meme is a tragic misconception. Put Avalos as your #1 or #2 if you truly like him(that's the whole point of having a ranked choice voting system, duh), and not someone else you like less because you think Avalos has no chance.

Bottomline - Avalos is just as likely to win as Herrera if you stopped spreading such a tragic misconception.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 10:52 pm

I dont understand how people keep perpetuating the misconception that Avalos has no chance. Did you not read this article? it mentions that a recent poll(which i know hasn't been released yet) puts Avalos as a solid 2nd in 1st choice votes, far ahead of Herrera, and 6 points behind Ed Lee. The same poll has Herrera overcoming him during IRV, perhaps because there is this misconception that he has no chance.

It's becoming clear that the Avalos not having a chance meme is a tragic misconception. Put Avalos as your #1 or #2 if you truly like him(that's the whole point of having a ranked choice voting system, duh), and not someone else you like less because you think Avalos has no chance.

Bottomline - Avalos is just as likely to win as Herrera if you stopped spreading such a tragic misconception.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 10:58 pm

I just saw a poll showing Lee at 60%. See how easy it is?

Avalos can't win not because of polls but because he has made zero effort to address the majority of the City who are not "progressive" but who rather want to see pro-business iniatives that will create jobs.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 7:23 am

Sounds to me like you're conjuring up another meme out of thin air.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 12:36 pm

Unless it's published, it's not credible.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 12:49 pm