A week after the March 2024 election, the final few thousand votes are being counted and the final outcome is all but certain. Digging deeper into the data will help us understand both this election and perhaps his next one in November.
1. Progressive voters supported Proposition A over the line.
The city’s progressives had a bad election, especially as Propositions E and F, which would loosen police rules and require drug testing for some welfare recipients, respectively, won handily. But one bright spot for progressives (and YIMBYs from all walks of life) was the passage of Proposition A, which would free up $300 million in borrowing for the city to build affordable housing.
Ostensibly, most of the city supported the proposal, with the only major political bloc, the Republican Party, expressing opposition. But it was the voters who opposed Proposals E and F that ensured the bill’s passage.
About 63 percent of voters who supported Prop. E and 61 percent of voters who supported Prop. F also supported Prop. A. However, he needed 66.67% to pass Proposition A, so these voters alone would not have passed the measure.
Conversely, 79 percent of voters who opposed Proposition E and 82 percent of voters who opposed Proposition F supported Proposition A. Although small, these anti-E and F progressives voted strongly. This proposal was passed with his 70.1% of the overall vote.
79% of voters who opposed Prop. E supported Prop. A.
Only 63% of Prop. E voters supported Prop. A.
79% of voters oppose Proposition E
Only 63% supported Proposition A
Proposition E voters supported A.
82% of voters who opposed Prop. F supported Prop. A.
Only 61% of Prop. F voters supported Prop. A.
82% of voters oppose Proposition F
Only 61% supported Proposition A.
Proposition F voters supported A.
Bureau of Elections data as of March 12, 2024. Will Jarrett’s chart.
It’s worth noting that most proponents of Prop. E and F still voted for affordable housing. That’s why the majority of voters in this election voted aggressively for affordable housing, while also supporting policies that empowered the police and placed limits on welfare recipients.
Still, the sizable minority who voted against the policy to increase affordable housing (Proposition A) threatened future friction in an uneasy coalition between YIMBYs and more conservative tough-on-crime voters. It may be suggested.
2. Voter turnout was…okay, but not great.
The exact turnout is not yet determined as there are still several thousand votes left to be counted, but it appears we can get a rough idea of turnout. 46.3%. This is by no means high, but whether it’s “medium” or “low” depends on what you compare it to.
Last week’s turnout was significantly higher than two of the four 2022 San Francisco elections and about the same level as the Chesa Boudin recall. This number was higher than the 2004, 2008, and 2012 presidential primaries.
However, in the last two presidential primaries held in San Francisco, turnout was significantly higher than last week’s election. In 2016, 56.6 percent of registered voters submitted a ballot, which rose to 60.6 percent in 2020. This was part of what could be called the “Trump bump,” an overall increase in voter turnout due to increased interest in the presidential election.
This month’s relatively low turnout could have interesting implications if it carries over into November. But this race includes far more elements that draw voters to the polls, including several supervisory races, mayoral races, and state and federal races, so the high turnout is completely surprising. It’s not something you should do.
San Francisco Department of Elections data as of March 12, 2024. Chart by Yang Junyao.
3. Propositions E and F gained support in wealthy and poor areas.
The most ardent supporters of Props E and F come from the most advantaged areas of the city, with Seacliff and the Marina topping the list. However, some more disadvantaged regions supported the measure as well. For example, 68.5 percent of voters in Chinatown voted E and 67.9 percent voted F.
In the Tenderloin District (the epicenter of the city’s fentanyl crisis, where about 30% of residents have a household income of less than $20,000), about 60% of voters support F, more so than the city as a whole. it was high. Similarly, his 57 percent of Tenderloin voters supported her E, compared to his 54 percent citywide.
Conversely, the areas most strongly opposed to Props E and F were the Mission and Bernal Heights neighborhoods.
Use interactive tools to drill down and explore school districts, districts, and neighborhoods.
Data from San Francisco Department of Elections. Chart updated by Will Jarrett on March 13th at 4:30 p.m.
4. More than a third of DCCC voters are splitting their ticket.
There were 24 seats at stake in the Democratic County Central Committee race, and many of the candidates were not well-known. This means that most campaigning was done as part of a plan. All but three candidates were either members of the Progressive Labor and Working Families Party or the Democratic Party for Change, which won 18 of the 24 seats.
However, the majority of voters split their votes. Approximately 34.7 percent of voters cast their vote for at least one candidate from each candidate. About 39.3% of voters voted only for members of the Democratic Party for Change, and about 25.7% voted only for workers and working families.
This may indicate that for many voters, name recognition is a very important factor in addition to strong membership. While many of the successful Change Democratic candidates were relatively unknown, suggesting their strong support for the monument pushed them over the line, the six progressives elected to the committee Four of them (Connie Cheung, John Avalos, Jane Kim, and Gordon Ma) are either: Boss or former boss.
Name recognition could be even more important in the November election, when turnout will be higher, with more uninformed voters likely to participate and more races participating. .
5. DCCC can give (incomplete) clues about November
Several Democratic County Central Committee candidates from last week’s election are also running for the Board of Supervisors in November. You can tell how voters feel about them by looking at their performance in the precinct last week.
in District 1, three of the five superintendent candidates ran for DCCC last week. Marjane Philhour received the most support locally, securing the support of 47.9% of Ward 1 voters. Incumbent Connie Chan, the Labor and Working Families Party candidate, secured support from 41.2 percent of District 1 voters. Independent Jen Nosokov followed with 5.6%.
District 5 Supervisor candidate Bilal Mahmoud also won a seat on the DCCC last week. He received the fourth-highest number of votes in his supervisory district, at least half of which came in the DCCC election. The 5th District is divided into the 17th and 19th House Districts, and only the far right half of the DCCC can vote for Mahmoud, so Mahmoud’s popularity among March voters is 1. It is not a one-to-one comparison. Matt Dorsey, John Avalos and Jane Kim all secured more votes than him in the same field.
district 9 Supervisor candidate Trevor Chandler did not top the polls in Mission, Bernal and Portola, where he is scheduled to run in November. Although he finished fifth overall in the DCCC race, he only received the support of 36.9 percent of voters in the 9th District, placing him 16th out of 30 DCCC candidates in that district. The most popular candidates in District 9 were progressives John Avalos, Jane Kim, and Peter Gallotta.
It’s worth keeping in mind that only registered Democrats can vote in this race, so the results don’t necessarily reflect the broader San Francisco electorate. It’s also difficult to read too much into a race in which half of voters didn’t cast all their votes, leaving the ballot box for a particular candidate empty. There are currently 727,631 so-called “undervotes” in the DCCC race, likely meaning voters are not heavily invested in the 24 candidates running for this relatively unknown political group. seems to indicate.
But these voters likely know that there will be fewer supervisory candidates in November, and districts will change, making for an interesting but imperfect forecast for March.
