THE BUZZ: CHANGE AGENT — San Francisco’s political establishment was delivered a rude awakening when Daniel Lurie, a Levi’s heir and first-time candidate, not only won the race for mayor — he wiped the floor in a crowded field. City Hall staffers and local operatives had written Lurie off last summer, when earlier polling showed incumbent London Breed gaining steam. But he surged in the final two months of the race and beat Breed by 10 percentage points in the ranked-choice election. Playbook spoke with consultants in Lurie’s orbit, as well as top strategists who supported Breed. Here are three key lessons from Lurie’s win, and what it could mean for future campaigns in the city: 1) Money mattered — just not to voters: It’s impossible to look at the race and not highlight Lurie’s financial edge. He and his immediate family poured about $10 million into the campaign, and he outspent Breed by more than a 3-1 margin. Lurie’s momentum in polling didn’t pick up until early August, when he poured millions into TV ads. Breed accused Lurie of trying to buy the election, calling his spending “pretty disgusting” in her final election night speech (she has since declined to comment on the subject). Other political insiders said they worry the avalanche of cash has opened the door for billionaire tech candidates to swamp local elections. But for all the hullabaloo about Lurie’s money, it didn’t seem to matter to the majority of voters who wanted new leadership. 2) His change message fractured the moderate coalition: Lurie, a nonprofit founder, performed well across the city. But his largest bastion of support was on San Francisco’s west side, where he dominated in the Sunset and Richmond district — areas with a large and powerful Asian American community. Lurie’s ads tapped into that voting bloc's frustrations over public safety and street conditions due to open-air drug markets and tent encampments. His team also touted the endorsements of dozens of AAPI leaders and tailored its ads for the community and ethnic media outlets. “Daniel says, ‘As goes the Chinese vote so goes San Francisco,’” said Tyler Law, Lurie’s top consultant. In winning over Asian American voters, Lurie broke up a moderate coalition that Breed and prior mayors have relied upon. That alliance — known as the “Willie Brown coalition ” after the former mayor — included centrist Democrats and AAPI and Black voters. Breed, a Black woman whom Brown endorsed, won few precincts on the west side and was forced to look to more liberal voters on the east side for support (she did, however, carry a few historically Black neighborhoods). Dan Newman , a consultant who ran Lurie’s independent expenditure campaign, said his change message spoke to AAPI voters’ discontent. Newman said the IE, which produced most of the pro-Lurie mailers, cast him as a non-ideological problem solver, but without the kind of dystopian rhetoric and imagery that could alienate liberals in other parts of the city. “You don’t win a ranked choice election by being polarizing,” Newman added. Todd David , a member of Breed’s inner circle of advisers, said the mayor struggled to cobble together a new coalition. She targeted voters in the city’s pro-housing movement (more on that next), Black and Latino people, the LGBTQ+ community and progressives. But it wasn’t enough to make up for losing API voters, in particular. “The mayor ended up in second place with an electorate that was really chomping for change,” David said. 3) YIMBY-ism wasn’t his central message: The pro-housing YIMBY (or Yes in My Back Yard) movement has dominated local elections in San Francisco for several cycles. Their chosen candidates, such as state Sen. Scott Wiener and Assemblymember Matt Haney, have run campaigns focused on the need to ease costs by boosting housing production.. Lurie has been receptive to the movement, but influential YIMBY groups supported Breed. Jane Natoli, San Francisco organizing director for YIMBY Action, said while Lurie made promises to streamline new construction, many activists felt there was a lack of specifics. “Lurie navigated this campaign by being ambiguous as much as he could,” she said. “He held up a mirror. That was his campaign, a brilliant strategy really.” Newman, the consultant on Lurie’s IE, disagreed with the notion that Lurie wasn’t specific about his plans on housing. He noted the group mailed voters giant booklets, outlining his ideas to overhaul the city’s permitting system and more. But now that Lurie is building his administration, he must balance the demands of powerful interest groups, including homeowners and NIMBY activists who oppose new construction. But, as Law noted, Lurie didn’t depend on anyone else’s money to win the election. “Daniel can’t be bought and can’t be controlled,” Law said. GOOD MORNING. Happy Wednesday. Thanks for waking up with Playbook. You can text us at 916-562-0685 — save it as “CA Playbook ” in your contacts. Or drop us a line at dgardiner@politico.com and tkatzenberger@politico.com, or on X — @DustinGardiner and @TylerKatzen. WHERE’S GAVIN? Returning from his trip to Washington, D.C.
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment