District 6 Supervisor Chris Daly. Photo by Luke Thomas.
By Chris Daly, special to FogCityJournal.com
May 25, 2010
I am not surprised that most of the candidates for District 6 Supervisor don’t like the Progressive Primary. I am surprised that anyone finds that surprising.
I see three basic categories of candidates in this race. Let’s start with the candidates who are not Progressives. Clearly they will criticize the Progressive Primary, just as they will criticize progressive values and issues. I am confident that any of our progressive candidates can handle any downtown candidate in a one-on-one debate. It’s easy enough to contrast downtown’s disdain for a progressive “litmus test” while they actively support their own litmus test for rent control! Sorry, but that doesn’t fly in the tenant-rich neighborhoods of D6. As for the downtown establishment, they are smart to attack the Progressive Primary. Their visions of sneaking away with the District 6 seat are quickly dissipating!
How about the higher-profile progressive candidates? All things being even, one of them should win this race. That makes them the most conservative candidates in terms of tactics and engagement (not on the issues.) Most have political advisers who are confounded by the contradiction of my political negatives and prowess. They want my political support without the big target on their back that comes with it. They also aren’t excited about having to do so much work so early in the campaign. It’s no surprise that they aren’t jumping up and down, eager to sign up for the Primary. My assumption is that they want to win the election. That’s the reason they will end up participating in the Progressive Primary.
Finally, we have progressive candidates who don’t have a significant political operation or funding base. I would never slight a person who puts themselves out there for public service. It is a very difficult thing to do personally, and each one should be lauded for putting themselves out on the line. However, our RCV system in this race could very well put these candidates in the position of spoiler. For example, even though 2006 was a pretty clearly defined race, nearly 30% of the ballots cast for the 4th to last place finishers were exhausted and never counted. In a bigger field, it is safe to assume that and even greater percentage and number of votes will not be counted. The Progressive Primary is designed to mitigate this problem, not to provide an additional forum to the smaller campaigns in the district.
Again, the main purpose of the Progressive Primary is to determine the strongest progressive campaign for District 6 Supervisor, to give that campaign a boost headed into the campaign season, and to minimize the number of progressive ballots that exhaust through the RCV process.
Progressives in San Francisco have fought hard to minimize the influence of special interest money in our elections and have set up a system of partial public financing in Supervisor and Mayor races. While I would prefer a more robust public financing program, this is the system that is currently in place. The threshold for qualifying for public financing is $5000 in at least 75 – $10-$100 contributions from San Francisco residents. While this threshold is significant, three candidates running for District 6 Supervisor have already qualified. While money is not the most important thing in a district race (for example, I have never been the top fundraiser in a District 6 race), I don’t think that you can win without the ability to set up phone banks and send some mail. This takes some money. Given this, any progressive candidate serious about winning in 2010 needs to at least be able to qualify for public financing.
One thing that I learned about being a candidate is that it is hard to put yourself first and take care of progressive politics at the same time. We shouldn’t expect that any of our candidates are able to do that yet. With that said, I think that we should be looking for the type of vision from our candidates that acknowledges that there is something out there that is bigger than their individual campaign for Supervisor.
In the meantime, I am willing to continue to take the necessary political hits that come along with implementing a progressive vision for our politics and our City.
The Hunger Site
June 3, 2010 at 11:59 pm
The conflict between Jane Kim and Debra Walker has caused critical debate within the progressive community. These are both impressive candidates with engaging histories known to many of us. Either would end up being a better replacement to Chris Daly than Theresa Sparks. As earnest as Jim Meko is, and as genuine an expression of district elections as he is, short of an earthquake, he will not prevail in November.
Neither will the minor candidates, or a D6 version of the “candidates collaborative.”
Minor candidates can make important contributions to the debate, however. They are often prepared to take risks on behalf of good public policy more established or “front runners” will not. They don’t want to piss anyone off. Minor candidates can leverage their potential for electoral mayhem to extract important policy concessions from the major candidates. They can do so right up to the time San Francisco needs to go to press with the November ballots.
There are good progressive issues that, to date, no major candidates are willing to discuss. They’re offering pabulum. Minor candidates can advocate for closing Market Street to automobiles. This has been a local issue in San Francisco since Carol Ruth Silver was on the Board of Supervisors in the 1970s. None of the leading figures will touch that issue although it would speed MUNI fleet speeds, and it’s practical; a small step San Francisco can take to wean residents away from automobile use. Former Supervisor Jake McGoldrick was a proponent of downtown congestion pricing based on his experience in London. McGoldrick was a huge fan of the former Labour MP from Brent East, who ended up being London’s Mayor and who figured out a practical way to reduce the number of private automobiles in and out of downtown London to aid public transit. If a candidate in D6 truly wants to help the MTA, this is an excellent idea to promote.
Thanks to IRV, minor candidates can pick up emerging issues, risk political capital, and in the long run push our local policy debate forward in ways that incumbent politicians are simply loath to do. In power, even progressives can end up being retro. Career preservation or personal needs can take over. In the abstract, change is politically compelling but to actually motivate elected officials to pencil out such change is like a dental extraction. Avoidance is easier.
In D6, the core progressive problem is numbers. A strong empirical case can, and has been made, that the progressive body count, the reliably left oriented electoral bloc in D6, does not support two strong candidates. If that bloc isn’t divided up in the end, it is sufficient to elect the next supervisor from District 6. There are well-meaning progressive activists, along with a few charming Generation X narcissists, who will argue that legions of yuppies and bus loads of Google employees will side with physical attraction over class interests. Thankfully such attraction is highly subjective in San Francisco and whether it’s Walker’s history of standing up to Willie Brown and boom era development, or Kim’s leadership at the SF People’s organization which advocated commercial rent control, SOMA’s aspirant class will vote as they have in previous cycles. They will identify with the Chronicle masthead, Gavin Newsom and the town’s corporate Democratic establishment. Instead of sorting through the reasons for why people become homeless, or treating homelessness, they’ll support new punitive measures to criminalize it. Newsom has put a measure on the ballot to do just that.
Add to that cutthroat mix the political cash nexus: D6 and D10 are the last two districts in San Francisco with development potential. The class of 2000 gave new land use power to the Board of Supervisors that makes D6 a much more valuable seat than it was 10 years ago. These new powers will attract new campaign contributions. From contractors seeking to do business at Mission Bay, Ron Burkle or Darius Anderson at Treasure Island, the local version of Boston’s “Big Dig” (aka the Central Subway), the Transbay Terminal Project, or the need to obtain a conditional use authorization for new SOMA condominiums – all roads lead to and through the new supervisor from D6.
Forget about Chris Daly, this is why $1 million was spent on the 2006 contest. He was a convenient sideshow. In 2010, D6 has all the promise of an electoral sequel to Willie Sutton’s old line: “Go where the money is…and go there often.”
Daly is working to come up with a way to solve an internal, progressive fight without taking it on to a November debacle. He may well fail as will the progressive community. Unfortunately, we don’t have a local political culture that is idea or numbers oriented. We do much better remembering names – the past of what X did to Y – and we excel at ego.
However, when partisans in both camps are pulled aside, they’ll concede a two-person plus progressive contest in D6 is a practical problem. Of course, it’s never “their” candidate who will withdraw. That is when rigidity and solipsism are useful. Daly could be blunter about what the problem is about having Kim and Walker both remain in the contest, but that risks inviting even more downtown resources into D6 for the eventual control of Treasure Island development, the Central Subway, Mission Bay, and the Transbay Terminal – and for the next 8 years! So he’s hoping candidates will embrace his D6 version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma: cooperate with the primary process so everyone gets a shot in the long run.
Over time, we’ve seen progressive schisms hand victory to “moderate” Democrats. Art Agnos was a one-term Mayor because he was bled on the Left by two other candidates. Did he manage his coalition well? Obviously not. Was he resistant to making compromises with difficult or even insufferable people to preserve his job? Yes, and that is probably to his credit.
In 2003, former Board of Supervisors President Matt Gonzalez was fatally wounded by the tepid support he received from former Supervisor Tom Ammiano, and the “it’s all about me” Angela Alioto show during the runoff period. Ammiano’s feelings about seeing a candidate turn on him who he supported in 2000 was real and legit, but not being able to get past those feelings in time was an electoral gift to Newsom.
As in 1991, Alioto chose to enable the candidate of the rich and privileged over her professed values. Still losing the mayor’s office was tragic and punting away D6 over insider “stuff” is not rational.
A Progressive Primary is an open, democratic means to resolve this conflict.
June 1, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Daly – just leave.
You have shown your true colors.
You came, you crapped and you left.
You never cared about San Francisco
You cared about Mr. Daly
You claimed your hometown and it is not San Francisco.
It is a foreclosed house
For your hypocritical soul
Daly – just leave
May 31, 2010 at 12:16 pm
The New York Times reports that Chris Daly is pushing to have the board of supes elect Tom Ammiano as mayor if Gavin Newsom is elected Lt. Governor (link below).
Ammiano ran twice for mayor in the past and was twice rejected by the voters. But now Daly wants to foist Ammiano on the voters through a coup by the supes.
I can’t wait to see the rationalizations for this move by marc salomon and Greg Kamin. (I love responding to their posts!)
Here’s the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/us/28sfmetro.html
May 26, 2010 at 9:06 am
Arthur,
Remind us on the morning of the broadcast. I ‘ll be sure to watch.
h.
May 25, 2010 at 4:38 pm
In a post above, h brown says:
“I like your classical writing.”
Am glad to hear you’re a fan.
You’ll be happy to know that early next month I will be reciting two poems by Sappho of Lesbos and Pindar of Thebes – both in ancient Greek, along with my own translations into English.
Check it out:
Wednesday, June 2, 6:00 p.m.
A View for You, Hosted by Peter Camarda
Comcast Public Access TV
Channel 76, ATT 99
May 25, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Arthur,
Daly’s #2 of the Class of 2000. He’s great to have on your side to be certain but even if he’s agin you ya know it’s for the same reason both ways. He does what he thinks is right. You hang in there Chris and so will I. I prefer a wide open election such as the one we had in 2000 with those 17 amazing people. We don’t need the process truncated.
I respect Chris Daly very much Arthur and he knows it. You? I like your classical writing. Your political writing is no fun at all. And, in my humble opinion, nearly always dead wrong.
h.
May 25, 2010 at 2:00 pm
“In the meantime, I am willing to continue to take the necessary political hits that come along with implementing a progressive vision for our politics and our City.”
Your such a martyr, its never about you, is it
May 25, 2010 at 1:51 pm
I give you credit, Chris Daly, for a willingness to engage in a dialog with the critics of your progressive primary. This sort of intelligent exchange is exactly what politicians should promote.
Some responses follow.
You say:
“I am confident that any of our progressive candidates can handle any downtown candidate in a one-on-one debate.”
Are these the only two options, then, either your candidates or those of downtown?
Whatever happened to diversity? Does it have a role anymore in SF politics?
You say:
“As for the downtown establishment, they are smart to attack the Progressive Primary.”
Your most vocal critic on this issue is h brown. Is he part of “the downtown establishment”?
You say:
“How about the higher-profile progressive candidates? All things being even, one of them should win this race.”
Then why bother having a progressive primary?
You say:
“They want my political support without the big target on their back that comes with it.”
Why is it that the name of Chris Daly immediately triggers a revulsion on the part of so many San Franciscans?
How is it that the name of Harvey Milk never had such an impact?
What did Harvey have that you lack?
You say:
“However, our RCV system in this race could very well put these candidates [minor progressives] in the position of spoiler.”
Weren’t you one of the big drum-bangers for RCV?
You say:
“the main purpose of the Progressive Primary is to determine the strongest progressive campaign for District 6 Supervisor…”
Shouldn’t that be determined by the resourcefulness and energy of the progressive candidates themselves, rather than by a process staged by you?
You say:
“Progressives in San Francisco have fought hard to minimize the influence of special interest money in our elections…”
When you first ran for supe, weren’t you able to win because you “lent yourself” $10,000?
You say:
“One thing that I learned about being a candidate is that it is hard to put yourself first and take care of progressive politics at the same time.”
Didn’t you put yourself first when you became a real-estate speculator in Fairfield?
You say:
“I think that we should be looking for the type of vision from our candidates that acknowledges that there is something out there that is bigger than their individual campaign for Supervisor.”
Does that vision include acknowledging the importance of civilized behavior on the part of elected public officials?
You say:
“I am willing to continue to take the necessary political hits that come along with implementing a progressive vision for our politics and our City.”
Your conduct in public has nothing to do with these hits?
May 25, 2010 at 11:14 am
Chris,
You’re like that knight in Monty Python guarding the bridge or whatever. You cut off his arms and legs and he just keeps saying: “I’m OK! I’m OK! Nothing to see here folks, just move along.”.
You’ve had your run guy. We’ve all supported and cheered you on. Now you’re just in the way. You no longer work on your district’s issues. It’s all about your legacy.
Let me get this to you as simply as I can …
If you have your ‘primary’ there will likely be 20 candidates who will picket it and call you an elitist. I will be one of them. The real ‘Boss Daly’ from Chicago is long gone. We do not need one in San Francisco.
To Debra and Jim and Kim … you cross our picket line and you’ll be doing it in front of cameras from all over, at least, the City. That’s what’s driving Chris. He needs one more time in the spotlight.
If you cross the line and side with the rich … ?
Also, in 2 hours Chris has told Danielle Erville and those trying to keep the Arberetum in Golden Gate Park free that you will vote on behalf of the initial step to privatize it for the rich.
You’ve lost all perspective guy.
You want a nice little task?
Open Boedekker Park and do it with bolt biters if you have to. Angela Alioto did it with the bathrooms in the parks when she couldn’t get Park and Rec to act. Don’t join the rich with your ‘pay to play’ primary and this monstrosity in the Park.
Deaf ears, right?
h.