Interim Mayor Ed Lee will be your next elected mayor of San Francisco, according to a poll published today by The Bay Citizen online news organization. File photo by Luke Thomas.
By Luke Thomas
Editor’s note: This article has been updated since its initial publication.
October 17, 2011
Mayoral contenders take note. Close your campaign offices, pay up your outstanding debts, cry and go home. The race for mayor is over. Interim Mayor Ed Lee will be crowned San Francisco’s next elected mayor.
That’s the questionable takeaway message one gets a from the latest poll published by the Bay Citizen and the University of San Francisco in the early hours of Monday morning, the results of which has Lee the projected winner after 9 rounds of ranked-choice ballot tabulations.
“Voters across the City continue to give broad and strong support to Mayor Lee because they already know what he has accomplished so far as Mayor this year and agree with his focus on creating jobs for the future,” said Lee campaign manager Bill Barnes. “We’re pleased the poll confirms what our volunteers are hearing on the ground, but we knows polls don’t vote, people do. Our campaign takes nothing for granted and we’re working hard every day to elect Mayor Ed Lee to a full term and keep San Francisco’s economy on the right track.”
New Jersey-based Maximum Research, Inc conducted the poll of 551 likely registered voters between October 7 and October 13. The poll was commissioned and paid for by the Bay Citizen at a cost of $10,000, confirmed newly minted Bay Citizen managing editor Steve Fainaru.
Raw data from the poll, including the questions asked and the respondents’ responses, is expected be made available online later this week, said Bay Citizen political reporter Gerry Shih.
The BayCitizen, a non-profit founded in January 2010, has built a reputation of being one of the most objective and cutting-edge news organizations serving the Bay Area. Billionaire philanthropist Warren Hellman, The Fisher Family, Evelyn & Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, Mimi and Peter Haas Fund, William and Elizabeth Patterson Foundation, Jeff and Laurie Ubben and Diane B. Wilsey, among others, funds it.
Fog City Journal sent emails to the campaigns of the leading mayoral contenders to gauge their responses to the poll and what, if anything, they plan to do to combat what appears to be foregone conclusion. Here’s what they had to say:
Michela Alioto-Pier
“In the span of a couple days, we’ve gotten more hints that Ed Lee is illegally coordinating with an independent expenditure, and news that every major candidate except Michela has violated the city’s campaign finance laws,” said Alioto-Pier campaign spokesperson Sterling Clifford. “There’s a lot to communicate to voters and enough time to do it. Remember, the poll showed almost a quarter of the electorate undecided. ”
Supervisor John Avalos
“We had hundreds of people on the street on Saturday and all of our phones were full at the same time,” said Supervisor John Avalos.
“We have more people coming in the door every day.
“We are campaigning to build progressive power and an alternative to the establishment which gives tax breaks to $7 billion companies like Twitter, representing the 1%. Ron Conway is a billionaire, a twitter investor and a big donor to Ed Lee’s campaign.
“The last day of the poll was before I was interviewed on national television. That event has made a big difference in my public support, all favorable.”
Board of Supervisors President David Chiu
“Last time I checked, polls and pundits didn’t get to decide this election, voters do,” said Chiu campaign spokesperson Addisu Demissie. “There are 22 days left in this campaign and David is going to keep spending his time talking to with those voters about his record of results, his vision for the future, and his desire to shake things up at City Hall. The more that voters learn about David Chiu, the more votes he will get – we remain extremely confident about that.”
Bevan Dufty
“When I ran for Supervisor, the polls had me losing by 6% three days before the election,” said former District 8 Supervisor Bevan Dufty.
“I am working harder and happier than ever.
“I take no offense at the Bay Citizen calling me a Zombie, Walking Dead is one of the biggest hits this season.
“But they are undeniably wrong. I raised $18,622 this weekend alone.
“Guess what? My commercial aired during the premiere of Walking Dead last night. This poll was taken right when I started airing and I’ve been bowled over by all the people who stop me to say how they love my ads and positive approach.
“I will not break stride over the next 22 days, this is a marathon and I’m sprinting to the finish.”
Tony Hall
“Another sad example of newspapers trying to cement election outcomes before voters can even vote,” said former District 7 Supervisor Tony Hall. “They hide the full sample and cross-table detail necessary to critique the methodology, and yet they admit to the using suspect technique of sample-weighting. We have our strongest materials ahead of us for these closing weeks and we expect they will change voters minds.”
City Attorney Dennis Herrera
“The Bay Citizen poll — like every poll — is a snapshot in time, which largely preceded the arrival of Voter Information Pamphlets and absentee ballots. It reflects the same uncertainty we’ve seen in the race for weeks,” said Herrera campaign spokesperson Matt Dorsey.
“The poll also shows that the incumbent mayor isn’t improving his standing with voters. Despite nearly $2 million in combined spending to push Lee’s candidacy, about 7 out of 10 voters aren’t picking him as their first choice for Mayor.
“The Bay Citizen poll also shows that voters remain unsure about their choices. More than one-fifth of voters are undecided on their first choice, with dramatically more voters undecided about second and third-choices, which will decide the outcome. So, the race is still wide open.
“Dennis Herrera remains the top challenger to Ed Lee. Herrera is a proven vote-getter, and he’s the one candidate who has shown he can win as an underdog. He did it in 2001 as a candidate for City Attorney, and he can do it again.”
Joanna Rees
“With so many voters still undecided, Ed Lee’s support declining amidst a growing web of ethical scandals, and with twenty-two days left, we know the only poll that counts is on November 8th,” said Rees Campaign Manager Nick Panagopoulos. “The fact is that most San Franciscans have only just begun receiving their ballots, evaluating the candidates and learning how to fully participate in the city’s ranked-choice voting system.
“An entrepreneur and educator with a record of results, Joanna Rees offers a real choice and stands apart in a field crowded with city hall insiders. She is waging an aggressive, grassroots campaign that’s focused on creating jobs, strengthening schools, and bringing our city government out of the shadows and into the 21st century. And that’s why every day, more and more San Franciscans are joining our campaign for new leadership and a new approach to city government.”
Senator Leland Yee
“I’m not sure about the polling methodology used by the Bay Citizen, nor have I ever heard of the polling firm they used doing a political poll in San Francisco or elsewhere,” said Yee campaign spokesperson Jim Stearns.
“In my opinion, these numbers simply don’t reflect the reality that every one of the campaigns opposing Lee is experiencing on the ground — lots of undecided, a definite drop in Lee’s support, a wide open race.
“We’re going to continue to run an aggressive, strong, grassroots campaign up through Election Day.”
Responses from the campaigns to elect Public Defender Jeff Adachi and Assessor Phil Ting were not forthcoming at the time of publishing. Their responses will be added when/if they respond.
Luke Thomas
Luke Thomas is a former software developer and computer consultant who proudly hails from London, England. In 2001, Thomas took a yearlong sabbatical to travel and develop a photographic portfolio. Upon his return to the US, Thomas studied photojournalism to pursue a career in journalism. In 2004, Thomas worked for several neighborhood newspapers in San Francisco before accepting a partnership agreement with the SanFranciscoSentinel.com, a news website formerly covering local, state and national politics. In September 2006, Thomas launched FogCityJournal.com. The BBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News, New York Times, Der Spiegel, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Magazine, 7x7, San Francisco Examiner, San Francisco Bay Guardian and the San Francisco Weekly, among other publications and news outlets, have published his work. Thomas is a member of the Freelance Unit of the Pacific Media Workers Guild, TNG-CWA Local 39521 and is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.
Follow Me:
The Hunger Site
October 28, 2011 at 8:41 pm
OCCUPYSF. PRECEDENT & PERSPECTIVE.
I am reminded that yesterday, Oct 27th, marked the anniversary of that day in 1985 when Steve Russell and Bert Franks chained themselves to the railings of the Federal Building and started the ARC-AIDS VIGIL that occupied UN PLAZA , 24×7, for almost TEN YEARS, sleeping in tents, alerting the public to a crisis, setting up a kitchen, preparing and serving food…sound familiar!!!
Those were the days my friends.
DUMP MR ED.
OCCUPY ROOM 200
VOTE AVALOS.
October 28, 2011 at 9:32 am
Patrick,
The David Campos hearing last week on the matter had people who know saying we’d have to have a change in State law to invest the entire 10 to 12 billion in credit union type institutions but changing the law is going to be possible as more public officials set up camp with the Occupy movement.
Go Cardinals!
h.
October 28, 2011 at 8:31 am
I believe I recently read somewhere that there is a ‘limit’ ($250,000?) to the amount that a ‘government entity’ can place in an alternative (whatever that means) financial institution, something to do with their ability to cover losses. Even if that is true, I think that $250,000 of City money deposited in every such local financial institution would be a big chunk of change reinvested in our local economy.
October 27, 2011 at 12:59 pm
I agree more with Patrick Monk. Support your local credit union, which are non-profits, and invest money locally. The city would be wise to explore this as an alternative to their current banking situation, if it is legal to do so. Better than BofA, and less risk to the city than starting their own. As a member of a credit union, I enjoy less fees, more personal service, and free ATMs – including no charges for using another bank’s ATM
October 26, 2011 at 5:55 pm
In the mean time we can ALL immediately, or gradually, transfer our money and business transactions out of the ‘To Big To Fail’ Banks, and switch over to local Credit Unions.
October 26, 2011 at 1:54 pm
Before we jump on the municipal bank bandwagon, don’t use North Dakota as justification. While the entire state has fewer people than SF, its’ economy is very different.
“Public banking advocates point to BND has having helped the state achieve a nationwide low in unemployment (3.2%) and the only budget surplus in the country, all during a significant recession.” (from Ann Garrison, above). From local newspapers in North Dakota, a different picture emerges…
In reality, it is a 53% increase in Oil and Gas Exploration and Extraction that is driving the North Dakota economy. “A big part of that is it takes 800 semi-truck loads of materials to drill a well over a one-month period,” said Lynn Helms, Bismarck, director of the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources. “If you can imagine a fleet of semi-trucks circling around these rigs one semi load an hour for 45 weeks supplying one of those drilling rigs. That’s why there are so many trucking companies and so much going on in and around North Dakota.”
North Dakota’s got 4 billion recoverable barrels of oil with a value of somewhere around $500 billion. It’s generating almost $2 million a day in oil and gas extraction taxes, and it’s generating thousands and thousands of jobs. That is what is driving the low unemployment, and budget surplus. NOT a public bank.
While a public bank may be a good idea, I doubt it has been given more than a cursory review. Like CleanPowerSF, the reality may be that the City ends up being on the hook for millions that it didn’t originally consider.
October 25, 2011 at 2:26 pm
A CALL TO ARMS.
“Ask not for whom the bell tolls”. This is way above my pay grade or level of expertise, so I’m just mouthing off. Assume that the putsch planned by the Pac Heights Mafia succeeds, Mr Ed’s unethical/illegal tactics work and he is appointed as Alcalde.
This whole conspiracy has been suspect from day one. I submit that those of you who know to make this happen start now, if you’re not already doing so, on preparing a recall petition that can be presented on the day of his annointing.
October 24, 2011 at 8:09 am
Dirty business as usual from Slick Willie and his gang.
“Forget it Jake – it’s Chinatown”
DUMP Mr ED.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLR4iZJLgc4
AVANTE ALCALDE AVALOS
October 23, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Breaking on KGO ABC news; Seven Mayoral candidates want election monitors to monitor SF Mayors race after supporters of Ed Lee were caught filling in voters ballots using a stencil in Chinatown on Friday
and other complaints of apartment managers collecting renters ballots to Fill them in. The candidates have filed a letter to State Election head Debra Bowen and to the feds requesting monitors and an investigation of widespread election fraud. The seven candidates include
Jeff Adachi, John Avalos, David Chiu, Dennis Herrera, Micheal Alioto Pier, Leland Yee and Joanna Reese.
This story has legs and won’t go Way
October 23, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Ha!!! Here’s your counter narrative: Votizen says Bevan Dufty’s going to win, that he’s way ahead of everyone, with more than twice the support of the next strongest challenger, Joanna Rees, https://www.votizen.com/candidates/election/538/.
October 23, 2011 at 12:21 pm
I came back here to see if there’s any new insight or news added, and to share my KPFA News on the SF Neighbor Alliance in Chinatown: http://www.anngarrison.com/audio/absentee-voter-fraud-to-elect-ed-lee. I imagine that everyone who’s serious about this is out there working for their candidates instead of hanging out online today. I just got a press release from the Yee campaign saying that this is just the tip of the iceberg, including a long list of other infractions, and calling for the Elections Office, Ethics Commission, Secretary of State, District Attorney, Attorney General, and US Attorney to investigate.
October 22, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Funny thing about this is that, if I’m remembering this right, Enrique Pearce managed Matt Gonzalez’s campaign in 2003, which some still argue he lost to Gavin Newsom because of absentee ballot fraud.
Dennis Herrera issued an opinion confirming the absentee voter fraud in 2003 but so far as I know, there was no further investigation.
October 22, 2011 at 4:35 am
Thanks Ann for reporting this. The video has been sent to Gascon for investigation. With the “Run Ed Run” sign on their table, supporters of Ed Lee are seen ]”helping” voters with their ballots by allegedly helping them mark their choice for Mayor for Lee. The ballots, sans other offices, are put in a bag. This happened yesterday on Stockton street. Herrera has recused himself from looking into the matter, but the IE is alleged to be committing voter fraud with this action. Yee’s campaign supporters reported this violation to the election department after they caught this “makeshift” table on he corner of Stockton/Broadway where they were campaigning yesterday.
Lee is denying any connection but this looks pretty daming to me. Lee if elected will be one of the most corrupt administrations this city has ever seen. If you care about the city, time to ask your candidates for Mayor to protest this action by the IE connected with supporting Lee.
Thank you Leland for this breaking story.
October 22, 2011 at 2:04 am
WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING DOWN IN CHINATOWN
Seems like Mr Ed’s backers are up to more funny business. Stay tuned. Of course his handlers are denying any impropriety. No word from Mr Ed yet, presumably because no one has yet told him what to say. Sad little man.
October 21, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Witnesses: Ed Lee supporters mark others’ ballots, http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2011/10/21/witnesses-ed-lee-supporters-mark-others-ballots/
October 21, 2011 at 8:30 pm
@Pat: A month or so ago I asked Jeff Adachi who he’d endorse as #2 and #3 for people ranking him #1. He said “Good question; I’ll get back to you when I figure that out.”
Today I asked John Avalos’s campaign staff who he was endorsing for #2 and #3 and they said they didn’t expect him to do that.
We know who else Terry endorses: Avalos, Adachi, unless she departs from the SF Greens. Sorry you’ve decided not to vote for her; I already did.
October 21, 2011 at 2:30 pm
@Ann et al. I have posted my gut reactions elsewhere, may be something lengthier (longer?) here on OccupySF soon, but on Mayoral race. My simplistic understanding right now. I think AVALOS is by far the ‘best’ choice. What is critical is preventing any of the other Stooges from continuing the “Downtown”>Feinstein>Willie>Gavin>Mr Ed corruption. The key is gonna be #2 or 3 choices that transfer to ‘our’ contenders. My sense is that of the other candidates who pass muster, the supporters of Adachi and Yee are most likely to choose Avalos, or each other, as 2nd or 3rd choices. I have been an ardent supporter of John from Day 1, however I would be ecstatic if John, Jeff and Leeland were the final three ‘left’ standing, then let the shit fall where it may, these campaigns need to do some serious ‘collaborating’, within or without the rules, RIGHT NOW, pay the fines later. Unfortunately I think we all know what ignorance lurks in the minds of the masses, gimme half a chicken and I’ll vote for you, so I urge a #1 vote for Avalos and Adachi/Yee for 2&3. Terry actually speaks my truth but I have been persuaded that pragmatically a vote for her at this time is ‘wasted’, if for no other reason than that the number of votes she may receive don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world finally on the eve of destruction.
AVANTE ALCALDE AVALOS
OCCUPY ROOM 200
GO NINERS
October 21, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Joanna Rees’s campaign manager called the SF Bay View for a correction on this because I mistakenly called her an investment banker even though I know she’s a venture capitalist – who favors municipal banking.
Common cents for San Francisco: Avalos schedules public hearing on a municipal bank, http://sfbayview.com/2011/common-cents-for-san-francisco-avalos-schedules-public-hearing-on-a-municipal-bank/
October 21, 2011 at 10:48 am
Chiu has a huge war chest of funds, so toying with the idea of encouraging people to vote for him is dangerous, even though his current chances are remote. It is really unwise to take such a risk in a ranked choice election.
And Ting, on the PG&E question, is lying. Ting set up a clean energy panel that was dominated by PG&E reps a couple of years ago, specifically to interfere with and undermine CleanPowerSF in favor of Newsom’s faux ‘renewables’ projects that he cooked up with PG&E and which purposely never materialized.
October 21, 2011 at 7:08 am
@Eric: Chiu and Ting don’t have a prayer. Yee might if there were a united front to stop Ed Lee.
At the September Bay Guardian forum, Chiu, Ting, and Yee all answered “Yes” to the question, “Will you support a proposal to either buy out PG&E’s San Francisco facilities or build a new city grid through a bond act so that San Francisco will control its own energy distibution system?”
Ting was not there for the question about municipal banking, but as Assessor, he’s been more pro-active than anyone else I know of re the foreclosures, e.g., proposing a foreclosure tax.
I don’t like what a lot of these candidates have done any better than you do, though you know more of the details of every vote than I do. But, given the power that has pulled together to buy Ed Lee, the practical political response, if you want to see public banking and public power in San Francisco, is ANYONE BUT ED LEE.
October 20, 2011 at 11:06 pm
@Hope
ps: Perhaps this will clarify.
The Shell deal is solely the creation of the SFPUC. The grassroots organizers had nothing to do with it, don’t like it, and are fighting to keep it from becoming a disaster.
October 20, 2011 at 11:01 pm
@Hope – Your last sentence is not at all clear. What’s your point?
October 20, 2011 at 10:57 pm
@Ann
Ouch! Please keep up better on what these candidates are about! Ting is linked at the hip with PG&E and Chiu has utterly screwed the progressive movement, the Bayview and Parkmerced; all in the space of two short years! Chiu would be worse than Lee. (Which is saying something…)
October 20, 2011 at 10:52 pm
@richmondman
What part of the words ‘security deposit’ and ‘groups working for CleanPowerSF are not going to let the Shell deal move forward without extensive and deep amendments’ did -you- not understand.
Perhaps if you were actually reading what I wrote and responding like an adult, instead of reeling off into a cheap narcissistic bend of seeking to make yourself feel important by insulting other people on blogs like some puffed up Yale frat boy, we could have an adult level exchange.
October 20, 2011 at 9:29 pm
I had a hard time putting this out of my mind today, even though it’s my job to think about genocide and resource rape in East/Central Africa right now. And I can only see one way to stop Ed Lee, or rather, two, now:
1) If Leland Yee, Phil Ting, and David Chiu put up a united front against Ed Lee, asking those who want to see a Chinese mayor to vote Yee-Ting-Chiu, in whatever order, and,
2) If all the candidates, including those three, also joined an “Anyone but Ed Lee” front, then,
It might be possible to stop Ed Lee.
And it seems worth it, since Ed Lee’s the only candidate who appears willing to protect PG&E from public power and B of A from a municipal bank. All the others told the Guardian’s September candidate forum that they would not.
i don’t sense that kind of unity, organization, or shared commitment, not even to those two basic goals.
October 20, 2011 at 3:45 pm
@Richmondman: As it is now, the city probably pays about $100 million/yr. to B of A, Wells, and Union Bank, mostly B of A, in service and bond underwriting fees.
October 20, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Richmondman the quote says the City “could be” on the hook, not that Shell “is guaranteed” a payment.
No need to lie on this one for just how stupid an idea it is. Eric’s excuse for dealing with big oil is already the lamest since Congress gave George Bush a blank check to invade Iraq.
October 20, 2011 at 11:51 am
Eric – thanks for the link to bay citizen. Here is what the article says “Two city agencies on Tuesday tentatively approved a draft of the plan, known as CleanPowerSF, and handed it off to the Board of Supervisors…The program would be run by Shell Corp., and would increase residents’ monthly bills by anywhere from $9 to $75, depending on how much power they use…If CleanPowerSF launches but fails to attract customers, the city could be on the hook for up to $19.5 million in costs, under the terms approved Tuesday by the the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and San Francisco Local Agency Formation Commission.”
So, CleanPowerSF will result in higher electrical costs – and the city has guaranteed a payment of over $19Million to a foreign oil company… What part of my comment didn’t you understand- besides all of it?
October 20, 2011 at 6:59 am
Sorry, not to get back to you sooner, Luke. I’ll be happy to donate to fund another poll (not $10K however) if other FCJ readers who feel this poll is inaccurate or faulty also step up and donate. 100 donors at $100 each and you’re there.
October 19, 2011 at 9:12 pm
Naah, was gonna say something but it can wait til the morrow. Night y’all.
October 19, 2011 at 9:01 pm
@richmondman – Your mistake is believing what you read in conservative newspapers with long time relationships with PG&E.
Those reports are absurdly twisting the truth. Furthermore, the environmental, worker, and social justice groups working for CleanPowerSF are not going to let the Shell deal move forward without extensive and deep amendments, nor without a concurrent track of a huge revenue bond constructed build out of renewables and efficiency, which if instituted properly will bring in enough revenue to obviate the need for such a large security deposit on the Shell deal.
And note that I said security deposit. It is not a payment to Shell. It is only a set-aside in case the current poor Shell plan proceeds and fails to get off the ground properly.
However, as I noted, the grassroots coalition fighting for CleanPowerSF has no intention of letting that deal go forward in its current very flawed form. And without our support, it indeed won’t go forward; so the Chron and Examiner reports don’t even remotely paint the true story of what is going on, even though the organizers have extensively explained all of this to them.
Besides the good reports by Rebecca Bowe here in the Guardian, the mainstream papers have posted ridiculously inaccurate stories on the subject, with one exception – John Upton in the Bay Citizen. His most recent report actually gets it pretty much right (except for the $19 million security clarification that I just explained). See:
http://www.baycitizen.org/blogs/pulse-of-the-bay/sf-trying-again-compete-pge/
October 19, 2011 at 7:40 pm
In 2010, polls made it clear that San Franciscans would not vote to send Gavin Newsom to Sacramento as the next Governor of California in any district but #2,so it seems a bit odd that they might now elect a Newsom appointee.
October 19, 2011 at 7:30 pm
Waiting to hear from Luke about my ‘contribution’. But it sounds like an IRV strategy should be anyone but; in descending order of threat to our rights; Lee; Herrera; Chiu; Dufty. Please keep on edjicating me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBQYWCw8n_k
This may be true and prophetic but I ain’t done yet
October 19, 2011 at 7:12 pm
More to follow if Luke wants to ‘publish’ my rantings, cant finger it again, for now this will have to do:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLR4iZJLgc4
October 19, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Reported just a few hours ago: Lee busted through spending cap which has now been raised to 1.5 Million. Lee has already burned through 1 Million bucks to get his 30% and touting that poll that puts all of the other candidate down to less than 10%. Lee is definitely getting nervous about Yee’s influence and is spending cash like I’ve never seen before.
October 19, 2011 at 5:51 pm
When I interviewed Adachi, shortly after he entered the race, my last question was “Who are you going to give your #2 and #3 endorsements to?” His answer was, “Good question. I’ll get back to you when I figure it out.” No answer yet, but I hope all the candidates are figuring it out, even though I already voted at City Hall today.
October 19, 2011 at 3:56 pm
@gregkamin: “I’ll offer the following deal to any one of the people who currently finds Yee unacceptable: I will hold my nose and put Adachi down for my third, if one of you offers to put Yee down for your third. Any takers?”
Yes, I’ll offer to do exactly that, though how I know whether you can be trusted (or vice versa) is an altogether different issue. Anyone But Lee, however, is a bandwagon I am happy to jump on, and I decided to vote for Yee third today just because he has a chance and Rose Pak/Willie Jr. hate him.
October 19, 2011 at 3:33 pm
What’s the difference?
The Reverend Harold Camping has announced that the world will end this Friday in Rapture. After all this BS I could use a little Rapture.
Go Niners!
h.
October 19, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Eric – I hope you are right, and I am wrong about CleanPowerSF. But just to be sure – the City of SF isn’t going to give $19M to Shell Oil? And the reports (Examiner) of the 15-20% electricity rate increases with only an “opt out” option are untrue? Please confirm. I apologize if I am incorrect, but if I am correct, this reminds me of Solyndra – it sounds great at first glance, but a bad deal is a bad deal, even for the right reasons.
October 19, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Though I am not going to waste my time actually debating with the perennial reactionary nutball ‘richmondman’ I will simply state that his claim about Avalos is simply absurd cartoonish spin, with absolutely no basis in reality.
October 19, 2011 at 2:15 pm
@lucretiamott – If you are going to rank Avalos, rank him first so that he will have a chance to stay in the running as long as Yee (the latter who, like Lee, will get plenty of first round votes. Until Avalos is clearly in second place next to Lee, the best strategic move is to rank him number one.
As to Herrera, how can you support him after what he did to the Bayview Hunters point on behalf of developers? He is no different than the Brown/Lee machine; a shill for multinational real estate financiers.
October 19, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Heads up, Rees’ response added.
October 19, 2011 at 10:38 am
If Lee is the candidate of PG&E, is Avalos the candidate of Shell Oil Company? CleanPowerSF is going to give a $19 MILLION dollar check to Shell Oil (a foreign-owned company), and enroll all SF residents in a program that will increase their electrical bill 15-20% – all without their approval or permission. What a ripoff! Let me know which candidates support CleanPowerSF, so I can vote for someone else.
October 19, 2011 at 10:34 am
i meant to say “presided over” police brutality…but i was e-mailing fast to get the comment in…
October 19, 2011 at 10:04 am
Just got my e-mail read on the air on Your Call radio giving a plug to Avalos and saying: Anybody but Lee. Here’s what i said (hope it wasn’t too blunt):
Please don’t think that local politics doesn’t matter. With less than 3 weeks left till the election I only have 3 things to say:
1) Anybody but Interim Mayor Ed Lee, who was in charge of police brutality toward OccupySF.
2) Check out John Avalos, who’s main value is connecting with communities. He also mediated a number of times at OccupySF to diffuse the violence.
3) Research the candidates and join a campaign–you’ll find community there.
http://www.yourcallradio.org/
October 19, 2011 at 9:41 am
I don’t think that who we, individual voters whose endorsements don’t count for much, are the issue.
The issue is who are Avalos, Adachi, Yee, Herrera, Chiu, Dufty, and others going to urge their supporters to rank as their #2 and #3 votes.
I think an Anyone but Ed Lee website is called for but it also won’t mean much unless all the major candidates back it as they did in Oakland, putting Jean Quan in the mayor’s office instead of Don Perata. Again, “Anyone but Don Perata for Mayor of Oakland,” http://www.notdon.org/, worked.
October 19, 2011 at 9:22 am
Gregs on the right track but heres where my vote went and why. Yee 1, Herrera 2 and Avalos 3. As a nurse, have seen Leland stand up to Schwarzenegger/Nunez when it came to mandating private health insurance and his record on progressive issues especially labor has been stellar. Herrera because SFlabor council give him an Leland dul and Herrera has been good on Gay marriage. I endorsed both for 1 and 2 because they have been taking on Lee relentlessly and that alone could hurt them and cost votes but it needs to be brought up again and again about Lee and the people behind him. Avalos got my third vote because he is a good progressive but dissappoints on his ability to take on Lee. The playing ping pong with the Mayor that Sunday morning cost him my second place vote. The same is true of Jeff. While I disagree with Jeff on pensions, he like Avalos, seems not to be the fighter that Herrera and Yee have been on the subject of Mr. Ed. Jeff is great on justive issues but he isn’t fighting hard enough either on pension reform or taking on the Mayor, this year. Maybe losing last year has cost some confidence with Adachi. Who knows.
Avalos and Yee are the only real progressives and neither Avalos or Adachi are really using every effort to defeat Lee. This is pure strategy and Herrera’s got some major defects especially his vote on gang injunctions with Yee would never support and his invalidation of votes in the Bay view.
Yee’s experience and a great GOTV effort may prove decisive especially among Asian Americans who may value experience over lack there off from Chiu. Neither Avalos nor Herrera can gain traction with the Asian American community.
Remember, we will have to live with this person for 8 years. Just my 2 cents but thinking about a return to the cronyism, privitization and retaliation of the Brown days makes me personally sick.
October 19, 2011 at 8:42 am
I agree with Ann about the Anyone but Lee concept. The problem we face in this race is that there are only 3 choices in the IRV, and just too many damn candidates, and different candidates are unacceptable to different voters.
Let me illustrate the problem. I’m voting Avalos and Yee, because they’re the two most progressive candidates who have a chance of beating Lee. I actually have no third, because putting Baum in third would be meaningless, and I find other pseudo-progressive candidates like Herrera, Chiu, and Adachi unacceptable.
But in the interests of unity, I’ll offer the following deal to any one of the people who currently finds Yee unacceptable (cause we can all agree on Avalos): I will hold my nose and put Adachi down for my third, if one of you offers to put Yee down for your third. Any takers?
October 19, 2011 at 8:24 am
Has anyone downloaded and clipped the video of Ed Lee speaking at the Board? Seems like a good idea if it’s as bad as Pat says; I haven’t seen it yet.
David Chiu’s campaign has responded that he supports municipal banking, but “the devil is in the details.” Not clear he’s supporting the Avalos proposal. I sent Judson a note to ask.
Though Phil Ting failed to show up in time to be counted on all issues, I think this Guardian forum made it clear that Ed Lee, who didn’t even show up, is the candidate of B of A and PG&E.
http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2011/09/22/guardian-forum-everybody-loves-public-power
That’s a simple message: Vote Ed Lee, for B of A and PG&E. Photoshop and/or graphics skills anyone?
On that basis alone, I think all these other candidates need to start telling us who they’re endorsing for the 2 and 3 slots, right away, and put up a united front against Ed Lee. We already know that Terry Baum is giving her #2 and #3 endorsements to Avalos and Adachi, unless she’s disagreeing with the SF Green Party about this.
October 19, 2011 at 12:11 am
Forgive me, I’m still in a state of shock.
I have never felt any need to contact this end of a losing season substitute call up from the minor league. Again my bad.
I didn’t realise how insulated he is is from ‘the masses’, though given his ‘no shows’ at most mayoral forums it shouldn’t be surprising. Even the ‘worst’ of our current crop of Supes, identify and give contact info for key aides.
On this arrogant little puppets site there is only one easily obtainable address, that of the little corporal, stop him now before it gets to late. NO VOTES FOR LEE ANYWHERE ON YOUR BALLOT.
October 18, 2011 at 11:56 pm
TELL ME IT IS’NT SO.
I was able to get out of the house and make it to the BOS meeting today. This is the first time I have seen Mr Ed ‘live’. I didn’t realise it was this bad. My bad. He can barely read the script that was put in front of him. Nice as he may be as a human bean, and effective as he may have been as a civil servant, he is so obviously out of his depth and incapable of being anything more than a toy minnow for the sharks who will leave him sleeping with fishes. Let him retire in peace and dignity, enjoy his real family.
Vote NO on Mr Ed for Mayor.
NO VOTES ANYWHERE FOR LEE: YEE: HERRERA.
October 18, 2011 at 9:13 pm
I reported this KPFA News on the municipal bank idea last Saturday, with the voices of Avalos and Adachi: Occupy San Francisco’s Common Cents: A Municipal Bank, http://www.anngarrison.com/audio/occupy-san-franciscos-common-cents-a-municipal-bank.
And I haven’t received an answer from Ed Lee or David Chiu’s campaign yet. I’d like to see a poll about how many people support that, and I hope local NPR and TV stations report the hearing on the 24th.
October 18, 2011 at 8:59 pm
Just got called by a poll, and I DID hear the name “Adachi.” The one name that was absent was Baum… guess she’s *really* off the radar. But they did ask about the other minor candidates, including Michaela, Dufty, and Adachi (though I forget whether they mentioned Hall).
The poll started with questions about public officials’ popularity. They only asked about Lee, Herrera, and oddly Chiu. That tells me the poll was probably Chiu’s. Herrera wouldn’t bother asking about a small potato like Chiu if you’re given only 3 names.
After that they gave a couple of long winded statements about what kind of a mayor I’d like to see and asked which one I agreed with more… poll testing messages.
Then they quickly read the names of the candidates and asked who I’d vote for first and second. By the way, my answer is one place where you would NOT hear the name “Adachi.”
So already the poll is skewed in favor of the 3 candidates they focused on, one of whom is minor (*ah-chiu!*… excuse me, had to sneeze there), but wants to project the narrative that his campaign is not completely down the toilet.
Then they asked what I thought of a few things, all framed in such a way that it’s almost impossible to disagree, as in
“Revitalize the waterfront and create jobs and beautify the city and mom and apple pie…”
I said it sounds good the way you phrase it but I know what it really means, so I’ll rate that “very bad.”
Also something about reforming ethics laws and holding politicians accountable. Hell, that sounded so good that even I had to grudgingly agree that it’s a good idea, which gives you an idea of how much shit they were shoveling!
And another one about creating jobs and getting companies like Twitter and Zinga to stay local. I don’t remember the wording, but let’s just say they didn’t say “tax breaks for Twitter, tax hikes for us.”
When they got done presenting their chocolate-coated feces on a stick, they again asked who I’d vote for mayor, first and second.
I stuck to my guns, of course, but I’m sure it broke loose a few more voters. Whichever results are more favorable are the ones they’ll release.
Finally they asked, “in terms of local politics,” do I consider myself conservative, moderate, liberal, or progressive. The qualifier was crucial. Usually, when pollsters ask that question, I say “moderate.” I say it because it’s true. I would give the banksters a fair trial before locking them in jail with the general population for the next 30 years. A real progressive would want their heads on sticks! Ah… but they mean locally… OK, fine, I admit I’m progressive.
So now that I gave myself away, they’ll just decide that “progressives” are going to be 13% of the turnout or something like that, even if they’re 30% of the responders, and adjust accordingly. That’s called “massaging the data” in the language of pollsters.
Look for a poll out in a few days that shows Lee in first with 23%, Herrera in second with 17%, and Chiu nipping at their heels with 15%.
Narrative: Chiu surges! It’s a 3 man race now!
And that’s how it’s done folks.
October 18, 2011 at 8:18 pm
http://youtu.be/F7zzgjtll5o
October 18, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Just accept it. The Chinese has invaded the land you sold them so many years ago through back door trading. Then you wonder why you feel so violated. Ha!
October 18, 2011 at 7:51 pm
I don’t understand why Ed Lee’s Lori’s Vans money laundering operation isn’t having more impact. Is it because people don’t know about it or because they don’t give a damn?
October 18, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Here’s the link to Josh Sabatini’s short but illuminating report:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/blogs/under-dome/2011/10/mayor-ed-lee-calls-trimming-city-jobs-lowering-salary-base
October 18, 2011 at 6:02 pm
@Anne. Way past time if you ask me, we need more #1’s for Avalos and Adachi, {yeah I know all the arguments against Jeff, my ears are still ringing from the words of some of my union companeros}. But I think we do need to focus, as you said, on 2’s & 3’s. So what’s the ‘strategy’; according to Baycitizen (!!) in my simple mind that means NO 2nd or 3rd votes for Herrera, Yee or Lee. Of course that does open up the possibility of Michaela wheeling in under the wire, but then at least we would get some return on the money we spent on the Million Dollar Ramp to Nowhere
October 18, 2011 at 5:36 pm
SF Examiner is reporting that Mr. Ed is going to be adjusting all city salaries to make them in line with the private sector and cut jobs. Touting his plan to create jobs he is sounding more like The SF version of Scott Walker where hs will lay off and downgrade city salaries except his own.
October 18, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Also, I may have missed something, but, have you reported, in FCJ, on Gascon’s investigation of Ed Lee’s money laundering operation, the minimum wage Lori’s Vans operators making the maximum contribtions?
October 18, 2011 at 4:42 pm
I think it’s time for all the rest of the candidates to unite behind an Anyone but Ed Lee campaign, like that which put Jean Quan over the top after Don Perata won the first round by a considerable margin in Oakland in 2010.
Anyone but Perata for Mayor of Oakland
http://www.notdon.org/
Also, the other candidates should start endorsing for the #2 and #3 choices behind them.
October 18, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Thanks for the heads up, Patrick.
Yes, they’re certainly trying to create a narrative, aren’t they?
I find it interesting that they call the sheriff’s race “wide open” because 50% of the respondents are undecided, though Ross has a significant lead. But they say Gascon is a sure winner even though 49% of the respondents are undecided in that one. Hmmm…. do I sense a bias here?
As for C/D, local props are notoriously difficult to poll. With C getting 45% and D getting 36%, what I see is that both could possibly lose. There’s an old (though somewhat faulty) axiom that if a prop is below 50%, it loses. Not always true in reality, but with 2 competing initiatives, and most voters going with an either-or approach, we could see more people breaking “no” than usual. And let’s not forget, everyone thought Prop B was going to pass. Then it failed in a landslide.
Methinks Adachi needs to dial up for some more dollars. The Moritz money is lagging behind the Conway money. The C folks have done their job well, but Adachi still needs to go for the jugular. If all works out well, the billionaires just might cannibalize each other and we could all win as a result.
That said, their narrative for the mayor’s race and DA’s race may unfortunately be correct.
October 18, 2011 at 2:20 pm
All three BC articles regarding their polls — Mayor, Prop C/D, District Attorney — read more like advocacy pieces than reporting to me. Except for the blub about the sheriff’s race in the DA article, the theme seemed to be “it’s a foregone conclusion.”
It will be interesting to see how polling factors into voter behavior. Do people stay home because they think the result is pre-ordained? Do they vote when they normally wouldn’t have because they don’t want Lee to win?
October 18, 2011 at 12:57 pm
I don’t work for the City. My life is not going to change whoever is elected mayor. My horserace handicapping predicts:
More reliable polls show Ed Lee at 28-30% 1st choice add in another 5-10% in 2nd and 3rd choices. That puts him at 33-40% of the vote.
The large field of other electable, experienced politicians includes none that will poll over 15% the 1st round and another 10% in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.
Anyone that wants to make a $100 bet against Ed Lee please contact me. Money upfront to a neutral stakeholder please.
October 18, 2011 at 11:09 am
@el greco, hit the donate button and send $10 grand and we’ll happily commission a poll, though I don’t expect the results tp be that much different. All the polls so far seem to suggest this race is Lee’s to lose.
That said, there’s still time at chip away at Lee’s numbers, but it’s going to take more than blind denial to achieve a different outcome on Election Day.
October 18, 2011 at 7:14 am
Folks at Luke’s Corner,
boys and girls,
The mud puddle is getting bigger
and deeper. Here’s some real information
and I hope a little fun.
Hellman/Shih phony polls in news
(Billionaire Hellman pays to slander Adachi)
(10-18-11)
The series of ‘Push’ polls being sold by the Bay Citizen’s very talented young writer
Gerry Shih (shame on you Gerry) were not done by a polling company. They were done
by a marketing firm which should tell you a lot. The firm chosen by Hellman is
named, ‘Maximum Research’. They’re out of New Jersey and rumor has it that they are
owned by Tony Soprano.
OK, that last line is me kidding you but only a little. Modern polls are as
dishonest as the Sopranos. They are not designed to measure public opinion
honestly. They are designed to manipulate and when deemed appropriate to reinforce
public opinion. Let’s put another link to the honest poll I sent you last night.
Here’s a sample of the first Gallup Poll conducted in 1939 between Christmas eve and
December 29th …
http://brain.gallup.com/documents/questionnaire.aspx?STUDY=AIPO0180A
You can’t get much more straightforward than early George Gallup asking about your
New Year’s resolutions or how you feel about Hitler. Now that, that’s
classical Americana.
American Polls at Mid-Life
A great American writer (Eugene Burdick – 1918 to 1965 – he co-wrote, ‘The Ugly
American with William Lederer in 1958 – JFK made it required reading in the White House
– he also wrote, ‘Fail Safe’ in 1962).
On his death bed in 1965 Burdick penned his masterpiece. It’s called, ‘The 480’ and
in this work he argues that Americans can be divided into 480 statistically measurable
categories and if you can get any of them to answer 10 simple demographic questions it
is possible to assign them to one of these categories.
This is important because Burdick posited, once you have them in a category you can
predict not only how they have voted in every major election since they’ve been
eligible to vote … but, you can also determine how they will vote in coming
elections on different candidates and issues.
The next (we’ll call it, ‘The Billionaire Hellman Stage’) in poll development involves
using polls as tools for indoctrinating through half-truths and often (in the case of
Hellman’s attacks on Adachi) outright lies.
Modern polls are plates of spaghetti
The Hellman/Union/Shih polls are full of what Luke Thomas calls, “triggers”. After
gathering basic demographics as Burdick dictated, the marketers move to a series of
question constructed to determine the voter’s mindset.
If a respondent answers a ‘trigger’ question in one way, the marketer is directed into
a series of questions designed to either change or reinforce the voter’s opinion of a
candidate or issue. With so many tendrils possible that’s why I say they are like
‘spaghetti’ (plus it’s my breakfast time and I love spaghetti).
It’s at this point that the lies kick in big time. Local Downtown pollster David
Binder did a poll in the Gonzalez/Newsom campaign in 2003 in which if a subject said
they were going to vote for Matt Gonzalez … the next question was, “Would you still
vote for him if you knew that he had pornography hanging on his bedroom walls?”.
Of course that was a lie but that didn’t matter to Binder. When I challenged him as
to why he’d purvey such a lie he told me, “I don’t check the veracity of questions my
clients want me to ask.”. And, he’s the local business community’s favorite
pollster.
Let me close with 3 points
First of all, you can’t trust polls. Particularly polls put out by lying dogs like
Warren Hellman and Ed Lee and Willie Brown.
Second, I’m hungry and headed for the Manor House for a big breakfast and a couple of
cups of coffee.
And third (and, perhaps most important) … the Giants should play Gary Brown in
center field next year. He just turned 23 last month. He played a complete
season in A ball where he hit .336, blasted 14 homers and stole 53 bases.
Adachi for Mayor!
Avalos for Mayor!
Baum for Mayor!
Hall for Mayor!
Miyamoto for Sheriff!
Gascon for DA!
h.
Delete & Prev | Delete & Next
October 18, 2011 at 7:06 am
If the Bay Citizen poll is suspect as several commenters suggest, why doesn’t FCJ conduct its own poll?
October 18, 2011 at 3:57 am
With IRV and so many candidates, doing polling is difficult if not down right mis-leading. You’re point is right though Greg. I believe Lee is still ahead at 25 to 30 % with a lot, a quarter to a third, still undecided. The fact that Lee is now going negative through surrogates like Assembly Woman and Sarah Palin protege, Kristen Olsen, who tried to twitter a lie about LeLand’s State Senate budget, I think the negative view of Lee by Yee and Herrera is having an effect. Yee went after Sister Sarah’s use of the CSU campus and its funding. Lee is taking money from Republicans who want to gut our BOS of its progressives. if Ross and Lee wins, there goes Ross’s progressive seat to a phony progressive and 8 years of free market privitization begins anew.
This will come down to a GOTV effort and whoever is the most organized on the ground. Counting anyone out at this point is a huge mistake. Lee is going negative for a reason.
This poll is an advertising poll to turn off the base of one’s opponent.
October 17, 2011 at 10:59 pm
I’d like to see a counter-narrative from some of the other campaigns. They have the money to do it. This poll only cost some 10K. Even Chris Daly managed to do a poll when he ran for supe. The very fact that there is no counter-narrative is not a good sign.
Yeah, I know I’m going to get no love for saying this, but I call ’em as I see ’em, and we need to be honest with ourselves. I really, really hope this isn’t the case, but it’s entirely possible that people just aren’t tuning in that much, and Ed Lee really is that far ahead.
The numbers for John Avalos are probably understated. They polled in English and Cantonese, but not Spanish, under the dubious rationale that only 1% of the city’s voters ask for a ballot in Spanish. That alone could put him well into second place, but not nearly enough to come close to Lee.
The numbers for Yee are probably understated too, for reasons already mentioned. And Yee does have a long record of doing better than pollsters give him credit for. But understated by how much, that’s the question?
And the numbers for Chiu, Dufty, Adachi, and Alioto-Pier are right about where I figured them to be. It was very unclear whether they normalized (massaged) the data, or not. The story was equivocal on that point. And if they did, what was their formula? Still, this one released more of the “guts” of the poll than any of the campaign polls we’ve seen.
Again, don’t shoot the messenger. I *really* hope I’m wrong, but I have a sick feeling that this poll just might be close to the mark. But I’d be very happy to see another campaign produce a different narrative. And in any case, we have 3 weeks to drive home the point that the Ed Lee administration is corrupt.
October 17, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Ed Lee’s got a lot of explaining to do vis a vis police brutality under his “reign”. Tomorrow he faces the BOS and don’t know about you, but I made sure Avalos, who seems to genuinely care about, ahem, the people, sees this and addresses the situation with Lee:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G9wkTIpY4Sw
Things are just beginning to heat up, in my opinion…
October 17, 2011 at 6:32 pm
“My kingdom for an honest poll!”
That quote is not from Joseph Stalin. Let’s see the other candidates sitting on a collective 2 million give us an honest poll and release the instrument with it.
Gary Brown in center field!
h.
October 17, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Great responses to this phony “poll”. The firm behind it is a “marketing” firm not a polling firm. What they are marketing is “ED LEE”, a defective product of dubious origins.
Try the IRV tool. You can get just about any candidate with a heart beat to win. In the simulated Ed wins in the 9th inning, he assumes that just about everybody puts him 2nd or third. What arrogance.
Agree with Eric: bad methology and with h:, there’s something fishy about this poll and how, the Lee team is setting us up for a rigged election.
Anybody but Lee. We are going to be stuck with a corrupt administration for 8 years.
October 17, 2011 at 3:18 pm
This poll (and the report on it) looks weak. It is based on a random phone sample of 551 voters, and makes a big deal of Lee’s Asian voter support without making any distinction whatsoever where those Asian voters were located.
If few or none of them were from the City’s west side and most were from the Chinatown area, this would easily explain why Yee got comparatively very low support from Asians.
The poll looks like it has other problems as well.
Bad methodology. Far too small to scope ranked choice properly.
Bogus.
October 17, 2011 at 2:27 pm
foggers,
Latest on feedback to me …
boys and girls,
This just in from a reader …
”
I have been called by three different polls and have yet to hear the name
Adachi. Bogus polls. Probably a smoke screen to set the stage for some
massive voter fraud – I’ll bet no reps from the other campaigns are down
there watching the absentee ballots get processed.”
Lee consultant ‘Ace’ Smith is an expert at
rigging absentee ballots.
Time to bring the feds down on Arntz?
How many ballots in your inventory?
How many absentee did you send out?
Give number sequences of same.
How many ballots carried home by poll
workers who are expected to bring them
to polls next day?
Number sequence of same.
All addresses of absentee voters who were
sent ballots.
How many ballots in inventory now?
Number sequence of inventory?
My suspicions?
I think the election is already rigged as was
the 2003 absentee count.
How we gonna deal with this?
Herrera, Yee, Avalos … get people down to
the Department of Elections to gather this
info or fold your tents.
Last I saw the City Administrator’s office
was in charge of the Department of Elections
and the Department of Elections (Arntz) worked
for them and was in charge of all ballots.
Til a few months back the City Administrator
was Ed Lee.
People I’d like to see answer some questions?
Jim Sutton
Bill Lee
Jill Lerner
This time let’s catch em!
Gary Brown in center field!
h.
Delete & Prev | Delete & Next
October 17, 2011 at 1:09 pm
This just in from a Fogger who closely watches the political scene in San Francisco:
I am not sure the race is quite over.
I don’t think voters are wildly enthusiastic about Lee, it’s just that voters accept him as Mayor and they do not have either much of a passion for local politics now and/or a sense there is a clear path for someone else who could win. Lee is a beneficiary of acceptance and apathy.
If San Francisco had a runoff election, Lee could be in trouble. Newsom won over 40% of “first” place votes in November 2003. Gonzalez was over 20% points behind that, and the race closed to 5% points. So Lee’s 30% would not be insurmountable at all without RCV.
October 17, 2011 at 11:53 am
Who got a call on this poll?
C’mon there are literally thousands of you who read Fog City and my Bulldog newsletter and the Bay Guardian and other alternative publications.
Did anyone get a call and answer questions on this poll?
Anyone?
h.