It’s not clear if Mayor Daniel Lurie is the cause of a changed San Francisco or a symptom, but, on the June 2 election results sheet, that was a distinction without a difference.
Barring a near-miraculous turnaround, every last thing San Francisco’s popular mayor and his big money allies would’ve wanted came to pass, and in no uncertain terms.
It’s unclear if Lurie is riding a wave or building a wave. But this, too, is a distinction without a difference. The outcomes of Tuesday night’s low-turnout election were not, on the whole, shocking. But the margins — damn near every race was a massacre — were.
On the cusp of the election, the backers of Proposition A, the big earthquake bond, were sweating bullets. The measure, which required two-thirds of the vote to pass, was polling at 64 or 65 percent just a few weeks ago.
On election night, the measure, carried by Lurie and the firefighters union, banked more than three-quarters of the vote.
The mayor had also become the de facto face of the No on D campaign, urging voters to spurn the “Overpaid CEO Tax,” lest it lead to a disastrous dispersal of city businesses. Voters seem to agree: More than 55 percent of early voters inveighed against the measure.
District 2 Supervisor and close Lurie ally Stephen Sherrill has nearly 70 percent of the vote. And, in District 4, Lurie appointee Alan Wong is enjoying a near-majority in a five-way race and easily wins in ranked-choice voting.
On top of that, incumbent school board president Phil Kim has a near-supermajority and prosecutor Phoebe Maffei is besting public defender Alexandra Pray for a judge spot by a 60-40 tilt.
The Department of Elections reported on June 3 that some 122,400 ballots remain to be counted. But, with the possible exception of Prop. D, the “Overpaid CEO Tax,” none of these races was particularly close to being close.
These are pretty much wipeouts across the board, and it’s not easy to foresee any of these results changing. “We’re living in Daniel Lurie’s America,” sighed a losing strategist.
City Hall critics who felt the mayor has been treated with too much deference likely ain’t seen nothing yet. The coming months figure to be a municipal deference-off.
It’s hard to predict Lurie-aligned supervisor candidates losing in November and it’s difficult to foresee the mayor failing to fundraise for and pass his charter amendments to amass even greater executive power in City Hall Room 200.
In 2020, an Overpaid CEO Tax passed by a 65-35 margin. What a sea change this city has undertaken: So now, a shade over five years later, with the right kind of eyes, you can almost see the high-water mark — that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
Now, that 2020 general election featured an 86.3 percent turnout. Only 23.4 percent of voters got their ballots in early this year. With the 122,400 oustanding ballots, turnout this year is projected to be a ho-hum 46 percent.
So, it’s not a perfect analog. But, barring unforeseen lunacy, it does seem to be the death knell of the political theory that, so long as enough money was available to spread the word for a populist measure of the sort San Franciscans ostensibly support, it wouldn’t matter how much money was spent to oppose it.
San Francisco voters, in the past, opted to tax overpaid CEOs or sock the sellers of big real estate, like Donald Trump, with taxes. This year, Prop. D’s message was that taxing big business would save us from Trump’s healthcare cuts.
But either that message didn’t land, or was simply drowned out by a cavalcade of anti-D ads, funded by billionaire tech CEOs, and featuring Daniel Lurie urging us not to ruin the good thing this city had going.
Doing the back-of-the-envelope math, Prop. D would need to win around 55 percent of the remaining votes to pull ahead. Not impossible. But improbable.
As always, it will become clearer as the votes are tallied. But, in the unlikely event Prop. D triumphs, the next tax-the-rich revenue measure will be fought with even more money and face an even steeper climb.
So, if it’s presumptuous to say that Tuesday’s results demonstrate Lurie’s popularity, it’s less so to say they reflect why he is popular.
San Franciscans seem content with the status quo: Even-keeled establishment incumbents like Sherrill and Wong are on their way to resounding victories while a self-styled iconoclast like congressional aspirant Saikat Charkrabarti, despite his vast outlay, was trounced. San Francisco, it seems, is not in the market for a shit-disturber.
In the generation since progressives unseated Willie Brown’s Board of Supervisors and Matt Gonzalez ran against Gavin Newsom, the demographics of this city have changed mightily.
Coalitions of renters and progressive homeowners have, through the decades, been supplanted by more affluent and moderate residents.
San Franciscans are also busier; you have to earn double-income high-end wages to eke out a middle-class life in this city, and political involvement isn’t what it was in past decades.
The progressive movement, if you can still call it a movement, has essentially been winnowed down to labor and nonprofits. Beyond proposing revenue measures — taxes, that is — it’s hard to nail down progressive ideology in 2026.
The ongoing desiccation of the progressive movement and its untenable demographic and ideological dead-ends are things my writing partner Benjamin Wachs and I wrote about all the way back in 2011. This has been a long time coming.
Fifteen years later, there is just not a coherent vision to counter Daniel Lurie’s Let’s Go, San Francisco! Even if there were, it would not likely appeal to the city’s present demographics.
Surely the candidates opposing Lurie’s preferred supervisors knocked on endless doors, but that’s not the difference-maker it once was.
“Everyone now is on these platforms,” notes a longtime city political strategist. “Everyone following Daniel Lurie on the Let’s Go, San Francisco algorithm is served a bunch of digital ads.”
Those ads were compelling. Far more so than a knock on a door from some of Tuesday’s victorious candidates. Or, it seems, any of the also-rans.
San Francisco has had popular mayors before. But San Francisco has never before had a popular mayor who also essentially ran a self-funded 24/7/365 campaign for himself and for this city as Lurie does and continues to do.
The Let’s Go, San Francisco! message is, in fact, a winning one.
After years of national and local stories focusing on the worst of the city, and an era of bruising, corrupt and creatively incompetent politics out of City Hall, San Franciscans are happy to embrace a return to civility and — surprise, surprise, surprise — acknowledge the obvious: The city is indeed a gorgeous and special place.
Well, of course it is! If it wasn’t, it’d have to be better governed.
The city’s dwindling left will never have a majority, let alone a plurality, of the money. Last night was no different: Its candidates and measures were vastly outspent. But, for years, the argument was that it had the people.
But that’s hard to say in the present. And it was impossible to say regarding this election. On June 2, the majority of the people did not get involved.
Daniel Lurie and his extremely wealthy allies have won the day; it was an Agincourt-like rout. But, despite what the Let’s Go, San Francisco! algorithm feeds you, this city’s issues remain intricate and unresolved. There are no simple solutions to complex problems.
City voters may yet grow disillusioned with present political leadership and the wealthy tech interests overtly bankrolling it to a gaudy degree even by San Francisco’s advanced standards.
But not in the short term. And, even if they do, there is absolutely no individual or movement in place to offer anything remotely resembling a competing worldview.
We are living in Daniel Lurie’s America.
This column was updated on the morning of June 3 to reflect the number of outstanding ballots.
“The city’s dwindling left will never have a majority, let alone a plurality, of the money. Last night was no different: Its candidates and measures were vastly outspent. But, for years, the argument was that it had the people.“
Let’s not forget how Saikat vastly outspent rivals and lost badly. Progressives didn’t lose for lack of money and were not outspent in all races. Also, perhaps voters saw businesses leave after the last business tax hike (that has not had any positive impact on homelessness as intended) and decided they wanted to keep jobs here.
I’m sure things will swing back left at some point, and I hope progressives learn to focus on outcomes rather than just funneling more money to problems via nonprofits.
For that matter, I wish Lurie would do the same for our police force.
Prop L, the 2020 CEO tax, came before a lot of businesses left downtown and the “Doom Loop” narrative was introduced. It also preceded the panic over closures of certain Walgreens, the Civic Center Whole Foods, Fillmore Safeway, etc. Prop D proponents didn’t do enough to reassure people that their favorite local chain stores wouldn’t turn into more empty storefronts. I say this as someone who voted for Prop D!
While I agree with your statements about the city’s demographic shift, I think this analysis is reading too much into Prop D’s failure.
Sir or madam —
And D could even come back! But there is a bottomless pit of money to fight back whatever comes next.
The point is: It should not be so hard to convince San Franciscans to tax billionaires, and Trump, to backfill Trump cuts. But it was. And that’s a change.
JE
<>
The voter guide for Prop D describes it as “Increases to Business Tax Based on Comparison to Top Executive’s Pay to Employee’s Pay” – which reads like another “Stick it to the man!” tax. Little emphasis on how the extra income would be used or why it was needed was ever provided.
It would have no impact to Trump, or course – or Google or Meta or the increasing number of real billionaires – but would impact Safeway, and by extension Safeway customers. Not hard to see why this one could fail.
That’s called being held hostage by the rich.
Let the billionaires stimulate growth by paying a living wage and creating consumers.
“It should not be so hard to convince San Franciscans to tax billionaires, and Trump”
It should not be but then Prop D didn’t do that anyway. In fact the City can barely tax individuals at all due to state rules. So all it can do is tax property and businesses. And the voters eventually see that it is ordinary people who pay for that through higher prices, lower wages or businesses moving elsewhere.
Maybe the change is that most San Franciscans are tired of having a new tax measure or three each election cycle. There currently exists an Overpaid CEO tax. We were tax happy for so long and didn’t really think about the taxes in a cohesive way. If the “change” is that we are more discerning about what new tax we layer on, then I’m all for this change.
“Let’s go San Francisco!” Is not a world view. It’s a tagline and rallying cry. But it’s corresponding world view is:
-Actually, it’s OK to pursue safer streets, hold criminals accountable, and use modern tools and technology to help bring justice to victims
-In fact, we should be focusing on positive student outcomes for our public schools, rather than using our schools as a vehicle for failed progressive adults to express their own political ideologies
-Having a city where business of all types and sizes can thrive – to broaden our tax base, create more jobs and foot traffic – is a goal worth chasing
-Building new housing is actually the best step to solving housing problems
-Etc etc
This is actually the worldview San Franciscans have voted for. Loudly.
Let’s Go San Francisco!
If building new housing is the message voters went for, how come both Stephen Sherrill and Alan Wong won on outspokenly opposing the most prominent development projects in their districts: the Marina Safeway tower and the 1234 Great Highway affordable housing?
If it’s YIMBYism in theory (they voted for the zoning plan that a city report found won’t build anything unless rents climb stratospherically first), it’s a mandate for NIMBYism in practice. When the question was about housing developments that are actually happening, Lurie’s allies went NIMBY, and that message won.
Scottf, thank you for your logical comment. This comment section needed it
Your phrase “failed adults” speaks volumes. Also check out Allison Collins’s real estate holdings before you throw stones.
So, um, you’re ascribing a politician’s success and value to the strength of their real estate holdings?
You might wanna pressure test that against a couple more politicians – I can think of at least one in Washington you should try – before fully committing to that as your value system of choice.
My point is that Ms. Collins has “succeeded” by conventional measures in both financial and political matters—she got rich and she got elected. I also suggested that you may be unaware of her wealth and so your description of her as “failed” seems ignorant given the context of your original comment.
My original response to you was kind of ironic; I sincerely feel that her actions in both politics and the real estate market are harmful to our city.
Not trying to insult you with this explanation even though we appear to disagree. It’s easy to misunderstand what people write on the internet and in this case I was being oblique.
Can’t say that my values are systematic but I do think that casually labeling people as “failed” is harmful and plays into the hands of the greedy and the vicious. So, uh, I don’t like him, you do! Neener neener!
> San Franciscans seem content with the status quo
Interesting framing. Lurie’s proponents do not think of him as the status quo, they see him as change. The change is less ideological and more practical – he’s a get things done mayor.
“Now, that 2020 general election featured an 86.3 percent turnout. Only 23.4 percent of voters got their ballots in early this year. With the 122,400 oustanding ballots, turnout this year is projected to be a ho-hum 46 percent.”
This is the most important part of the article
It might be too early to write the obituary of progressives in SF. But surely it peaked around the turn of the century when district elections propelled the likes of Chris Daly into power.
It could only ever go downhill from there.
It’s over. Honestly just look at what gets upvoted in the ML comment section nowadays while these same people run to Reddit to whine about this so-called heavily biased progressive news outlet.
Progressives in SF get beat up on Reddit. They get beat up on Twitter. They get beat up on Bluesky.
The only place they don’t get beat up is the stickers on stalls in the Sycamore.
If “let’s go San Francisco” is considered a worldview, then there are plenty of people offering a competing worldview: a world where working class people can have healthcare, afford to live here, and don’t have to bend over backwards to survive. Sadly, a lot of the people who voted early in this election seem to be full of contradictions. How is Steyer leading in votes here while Prop D lags behind? Makes no sense.
“there are plenty of people offering a competing worldview: a world where working class people can have healthcare, afford to live here, and don’t have to bend over backwards to survive.”
No there aren’t. There are staffers from city funded nonprofits that provide scant services and public sector unions clamoring for more funding claiming they’re solving persistent problems while making no discernible progress.
Progressive politics in San Francisco has been hijacked by self serving saboteurs and run into the ground. Professional progressives have nothing to say to most voters other than to lay guilt trips demanding more funding for their nonprofits and a better deal for public sector workers than most voters have.
They exiled residents from their coalition and battened down the hatches with a series of exclusion criteria based on prejudices of demographic pre-crime that don’t get applied to those who advance their funding agenda.
A thorough house clean is mandatory after this kind of shellacking.
“Progressive politics in San Francisco has been hijacked by self serving saboteurs and run into the ground.” So true. The best of intentions foiled by naive optimism, lax execution, and mercenary constituents. Lurie’s predecessor was no progressive but benefitted from progressive politics. Do you remember Mau Mauing the Flack Catchers? We left the floodgates open.
Another factor is that there are no longer any “heavy hitters” in the local progressive camp. Where once we had Moscone and Milk, Agnos, Britt and Bierman, Ammiano and Daly, Mirkarimi and Gonzalez, Campos and Avalos we now have only lightweight lefties like Chan and Fielder. And the odd castoff like Peskin and Preston.
The SF we live in was born out of a decade plus of progressive supervisor’s no new housing policy. Without new units the math was simple: for every middle income person or struggling family moving out a wealthy individual or very wealthy family moved in. Call up Dean or Aaron and thank them.
Feeling nostalgic for SF’s peak progressive politics? Vote for Kim in the state insurance commissioners race and see how that plays out.
Go Lurie! Bringing common sense and respectability back to the mayor’s office. The progressives have no message because they’ve done nothing but run the city into the ground, and it’s finally obvious the emperor has no clothes. We’ll see this November that voters want a actual functional government, and not performative progressive politics.
Yup.
The billionaires will show the way, just like our national economy that’s thriving so strongly.
just like Reagan did wonders for our debt by catering to the 1%
RB, don’t bother being logical with these people. The below discussions between Ed Harris and JE show that even when it is republicans or grifters who fail the citizens, many love to blame progressives. Many in SF have made it pretty clear – they love when the wealthy fail them.
SF government does not have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. We spend more (per person) and get less from our government compared to just about any city in the county. Spending more money on corrupt non-profits and city bureaucrats that deliver next to nothing of value helps no one except those grabbing the money. Creating layer after layer of taxes on corporations does come at a cost — it pushes businesses to move or set up shop down the peninsula or across the bay. That is the reason so many people voted against Prop D. It has nothing to do with political advertising and everything to do with the reality that we need more businesses and less government if we want SF to thrive.
You can’t beat something with nothing. Lurie has something. Progs’ agenda has dwindled solely to that which is funded, poverty charity. Progs have had nothing to say about public-facing city function, DPW, Muni, Rec+Park.
All the progs have are hooking themselves up to public revenue streams and a barely concealed contempt for the electorate.
Holding the voters with the key to the government in contempt and refusing to deliver on any public facing political reforms is what flung the operation over the cliff.
That these people continue to get paid with government funds indicates that this is intentional, they are being paid money, win or lose, to play a political role that has nothing to do with being responsive to voters because fundamentally, they do not trust the voters.
The failure of Prop D and the ensuing budget turmoil will probably result in the defunding of a slew of city funded nonprofits. That will diminish nonprofit barriers to the incipient resident organizing currently underway, connecting various nodes of hyperlocal activism into a Mission District wide organization.
We will bury you.
“All the progs have are hooking themselves up to public revenue streams and a barely concealed contempt for the electorate.”
How is this different from local billionaires…
I asked myself as I read “was that a HST quote?” and lo and behold the link confirmed it was. Good writing as always!
Thank you! When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
JE
Under progressive control, SF street conditions became horrible while taxes increased. Think of SF as a business providing a product. If you lower the value of your product while raising the price, people will want something else. Right now, there is no room to raise taxes as jurisdictions near and far are more enjoyable and less costly. It’s just a reality that most people who live here acknowledge.
Ed —
What is this progressive control you speak of? Do you think the Board of Supervisors is responsible for overseeing the Department of Public Works? Do you need me to connect you to Mayor Art Agnos?
Best,
JE
Perhaps progressive ideology would have been a better statement. Certainly the districts of the city under progressive control have worse crime, street conditions, etc than the ones under moderate control. In the mission, my packages are all stolen between 20-90 minutes 100% of the time; illegal street vending is rampant; fentanyl dealers roam the streets with impunity; fentanyl addicts block my driveway; sit down restaurants are effectively banned by law; Our now-MIA supervisor is even against legitimate police enforcement given the risk a criminal might be deported. I grew up in NYC in the 70s and 80s so have a high tolerance for this stuff but it’s over the top. I’ve been in the mission for 25 years and felt more comfortable walking around when the gangs ruled the area.
Ed —
Thanks for writing, but this is kind of a mess. The Tenderloin and SoMa are not overseen by progressive supervisors, even if the Mission is. I’m sorry your packages are getting stolen. Maybe we should add this to the list of things you seem to think are the purview of a city supervisor with a staff of four to go along with cracking down on fentanyl dealers both mobile and sedentary. I don’t know what to make of your claim that sit-down restaurants are banned. I suggest a walk up and down both Mission or Valencia. You may yet find a few.
The violence in New York in the 1970s and the Mission in the 1990s make anything in the present day resemble a child’s experiment. I can understand being uncomfortable with today’s street conditions, but comparing them in any way to those prior eras is akin to likening Pat Spencer to Steph Curry.
Best,
JE
“Think of SF as a business providing a product” Or think of SF as a farmer making cheese from goat milk. Or think of SF as a gnome hunting snipes with a crossbow. Or think of SF as me crushing boll weevils one by the one as they crawl out of my asshole.
People present this “government works/should-work like a business” trope as though it’s some kind of wisdom that’s helpful to repeat in any situation. It’s only that to people who are brainwashed to believe that private property and capitalism are the solution to every problem. Does the government of Switzerland run like a business? Singapore?
What are you trying to accomplish by saying “think of X as Y” without elaborating, when everyone knows that X is exactly X. Can you explain how this is a useful comparison?
And I must add, if you hate it so much here you are free to leave.
Joe,
About 20 years ago someone critical of Willie Brown’s stewardship asked him a question …
“Mr. Mayor, if we stay on the path you’re on we’ll end up with a city that is only for the wealthy.”
The Mayor replied:
“Would that be a bad thing?”
Well, we uh gettin’ there.
Hey, I’ve spent a lifetime growing up, living and working with criminals from the projects in St. Louis to classrooms in South Carolina and San Francisco and poverty is the overall factor breeding crime and gentrification in this City has driven most of our crime (particularly violent) mostly to the East Bay.
Plus, people have stopped reporting crime.
My dog and I spend mornings picking up trash and pulling weeds in our neighborhood which is 2 blocks from 16th and Mission and in just the past 2 weeks I’ve watched 3 serious (to me) crimes go unreported because the victims had no confidence that the police would do anything.
That’s my number one complaint with Mayor Lurie and his SFPD.
They stopped being a part of the community like neighbors with guns and as guests at our parties and on our corners always walking past and then walking past again.
Hey, you’d be surprised how much goodwill one cop walking past the same storefronts and apartment houses over and over again makes.
We had a force that had 900 cops and Patrol Specials walking Foot Patrols from 1880 until 1960 and things have deteriorated since then.
We can and should return to that model with 30 cop boxes scattered all around the City manned 24/7/365 where citizens know there will ALWAYS be an officer on duty.
Tossing a couple of hundred officers and Sheriff’s deputies and DPW and BART at 16th and Mission for a month or so did absolutely nothing to civilize that intersection.
A cop box to guard a couple dozen licensed vendors there would do the trick and toss in some mariachi bands cause if Tipping Point donors deserve free music then so do we !
go Niners !!
h.
My head is spinning from the vacillations.
Too bad we’re only hearing about this “Let’s Go, San Francisco algorithm” after the election.
We might be living in Lurie’s San Francisco, but Lurie’s America? We are a little and very loud blip in California, let alone America. Our politics are hardly reflective of America.
With all due respect to the Mayor, he seems to be the living embodiment of someone born on third base who thinks he hit a triple. Crime is down? Crime is down everywhere, and it was actually historically low before he took office. The homeless aren’t pitching tents? That is due to a Supreme Court decision that enabled clearing encampments. The Mayor is quite good at hiring consultants to build his image and quite good to the police and the wealthy, receiving tax breaks. The Mayor is quite good at spending vast sums of money on his campaigns
As someone who is pretty firmly in the camp that Joe is portraying the two things that come to mind are – one how i do love reading Joe’s thoughtful criticism (and Mission Local in general ) and two, the pedant in me wants to point out that Agincourt was the victory of the plucky English bowmen (the peasants) against an overwhelming force of French Aristocratic Knights supported by Italian mercenaries, so perhaps not the best analogy…
Alex —
You are 100 percent correct on Agincourt. I was just thinking about the decisiveness, but you’re certainly right. It is the wrong battle to liken to the present moment. I’ll do better with the martial analogies next time.
JE
The progressive socialists have spent decades “saving” San Francisco through high taxes, expanded social programs, and a growing network of corrupt nonprofits and self-serving unions—at taxpayer expense. Measures intended to help the working class often end up routing funds through corrupt organizations that repeatedly demand more resources while delivering limited accountability or impact.
The result is a self-sustaining corrupt system built on continuous funding requests, recurring crisis narratives, and an expanding industry around the very problems it claims to address.
Meanwhile, many working residents are leaving the City as public resources support illegal immigrants and mentally ill drug addicts instead of citizens who actually pay into the system.
Go Lurie!
indistinguishable from a Trump supporter.
Completely.
Point: Malibu Dan Lurie is an inherited-wealth mediocrity who has bamboozled the city’s electorate using the narcotic powers of money and advertising. He has no particular agenda distinct from that of various dime-a-dozen pro-developer moderates. The best thing we can say about him is that he’s less corrupt than London Breed, at least so far.
Counterpoint: someone please explain a persuasive counterpoint because I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
A key plank in Lurie’s platform that he described early in his campaign was to hold accountable people involved in city affairs. One example he gave was that he would simply audits contractors and non-profits receiving city funds to ensure they delivered what they said they would deliver, or they would no longer receive funding, regardless of any political fall out. So basic, and yet a breath of fresh air in this town. Anyone who doesn’t support accountability – take a hike.
While I think this is a vital task, and one that the last few mayors completely failed to tackle, I have also not seen any communications from Lurie’s office indicating that he’s done this . Do you have any sense if he has done anything material on this front besides wave after wave of layoffs in the city gov?
My one word-oid response: opengov. Where’s the accountability for this blatant corruption?
It is never your opponent’s fault when you lose a political contest.
all this election tells us is that low voter turnout in san francisco gives the billionaires supporting lurie more power.
This is the takeaway.
We all remember what happened when Chesa Boudin was in office. The progressive’s wet dream finally came true, and the results were visible to all.
So we’re saying it loudly: NEVER AGAIN.
I guess I shouldn’t be shocked – the city is rife with PMC, reactionaries, and tech-workers. And only increasing. But it’s still sad. Oh well, in a few years when nothing changes and all structural issues are exacerbated, the pendulum will swing back. For now, citizens are under the false impression that a new face in the Mayor’s office is making things “safer” and “better” even though policy wise almost no change has occurred from London Breed. Thankful that this era of neoliberalism in SF has brought us 4K for a one bedroom and an 18% increase in rents YOY. Sounds tenable! Even if it doesn’t result in price decreases or mass exodus, may God or Donald Trump’s incompetence (or a combination of both) pop this AI bubble soon.
What is pmc?
professional-managerial class
Professional-managerial class
Thanks
We are living in Daniel Laurie’s America. Daniel Laurie is on team Trump after all, and there is little substantial difference in their policies and how they run a government. Billionaires ruling for the interests of other billionaires, money decides elections, the rich get richer, gain more power, and the poor lose even more. Austerity at a time of supposedly booing economy.
Laurie proudly broadcasts his brutality of my homeless and working class neighbors, just as the federal government does for immigrants. Laurie, in a very DOGE-like way, cuts funding for essential services like muni while boosting funding for police and surveillance, even as crime has been on a decades long decline, and muni ridership was rising.
Democracy and Billionaires cannot coexist. The same forces that have taken over the federal government are also just as present locally.
I just want San Franciscans to be honest with themselves. As long as they are supporting this oligarch mayor, his proposals, and the entire techno fascist ecosystem, then they are MAGA. Maybe MAGA with an iced matcha or something like that.
As the rest of the country begins to fight back against corporate power, begins turning against Republicans, standing up to protect their communities, are we here in San Francisco going to continue to embrace our corporate tech lords as they pillage our lands, pollute our air, and buy our government.
We are in the geographic and spiritual center of the end of democracy, the rise technofeudalism. A handful of powerful San Franciscans are engineering the end of the end of the world as we know it and in a tangible and rapid manner. And thus we also best positioned and have the most responsibility to do something about it. Instead we are embracing it. We are not progressive, we are not even liberal, we are just as reactionary, ignorant, and hateful as any of the red states that California liberals love to condemn.
We do live in Daniel Laurie’s America, and it is a nightmare.
“Daniel Laurie is on team Trump after all, and there is little substantial difference in their policies and how they run a government.”
LOL. This is the statement of someone who desperately needs to touch grass. I suggest Dolores or Precita Parks.
Anyone who is truly unable to measure the substantive differences between Mayor Lurie and DJT or the MAGA movement at large isn’t someone I’m going to take sociopolitical advice from!
If this post is, more likely, some leftist cynicism trolling to make yourself feel better… well, that’s fine, but it comes at the cost of advancing your beliefs in a manner that people will come around to. Because I’m certainly not the only reader who guffawed aloud at your first paragraph and mostly ignored the rest. Best of luck out there.
Amen, primo
Please then, what are the substantive differences between Trump and Laurie? I followed my statement with just a handful of examples, and I could go on all day. But like you said, you didn’t read that.
Its no coincidence that Laurie is a darling of right wing media. Sure, the public image they each try to portray is different, but they serve the same interests, and outside of San Francisco, have the same fans.
Daniel Lurie: “We’re protecting critical legal services for immigrants and LGBTQ+ residents.”
Daniel Lurie: “As February comes to a close, my commitment to uplifting the Black community remains. Whether that means investing in Black youth or supporting Black-owned businesses throughout the city, this work matters every month of the year.”
Daniel Lurie: “A resident once asked me, “What will you do to protect my community?” That question drives my campaign. The murder of Michelle Henry, a trans woman, is a tragic reminder that hate still lurks. We must be unwavering in our commitment to the transgender community. I will champion gender-affirming care, mental health services for LGBTQ+ youth, and the creation of safe spaces for trans students. And yes, I will make San Francisco a sanctuary city for transgender rights.”
Are these the quotes that the right-wing media prints in the fawning coverage of their “darling?” No, of course not. Right-wing media is a scam, full stop, and you attempting to use their bullcrap as a joust from the left is pretty pathetic, IMO.
Anyhow, there’s our Mayor celebrating Pride, protecting immigrants, lauding Black History Month, and protecting the Trans community.
All of which are considered cardinal sins by Team Trump, and all of which were easy to find with a 10-second browse on Al Gore’s internet.
So, yeah – this is why no one takes you seriously when you claim that Mayor Lurie is “on Team Trump.”
Such a BS claim is laughable; it’s beyond hyperbole, it is, in fact, akin to the right-wing media dung pile, which is based on feelings, not facts.
So while you claim our Mayor is “Team Trump,” I find it ironic that your methods are so very similar to the right-wing media that made Trump possible in the first place.
Have a great weekend!
maybe you should’ve read the entire comment
Those who conflate Trump and Lurie are losing all credibility, marginalizing themselves, and making their arguments irrelevant.
This is the best comment I have read on ML in quite some time.
Kurt and Tito,
I agree with you both.
The Mayor is trying like hell but he has some serious reforms to do in many of the departments who deal with volunteers where the rubber meets the road and I’m talking about me unable as a long time dedicated volunteer unable to get Liquid Sunshine for my spray bottle.
Maybe bitching here will get George at DPW supplies to send me some.
It says, ‘Connie for Congress’ on my trash cart and will for another 150 days and I’m just saying that as a free ad.
lol
go Niners !!
h.