The First Mayoral Debate
The first debate of the San Francisco mayoral campaign showed the contrasts between the candidates, but probably did not change the race much.
On Wednesday night all five major candidates appeared in the first real debate of the San Francisco mayoral campaign. The event was hosted by City Arts & Lectures. This was, in some respects, an unusual debate for reasons that had nothing to do with the candidates.
First, I don’t know how it looked for those attending the debate in person, but online the lighting was just terrible. The background behind the candidates was completely dark, making the candidates themselves appear almost spectral as they emerged from the dark. It would have been an interesting idea for a play or theatrical performance, but it made it very hard to focus on the candidates and discouraged interactions between the who may have had a tough time seeing eachother.
Second, I was intrigued by the idea of having two moderators one, Heather Knight, to ask the questions and interact with the candidates on the substance and the other to provide what at times felt like comic relief. However, although towards the end of the debate he asked a question about drag queens in which two of the candidates, for Mayor of San Francisco, Asha Safai and Mark Farrell revealed they don’t really know any drag queens, Manny Yekutial was generlaly inadequate in the comic relief role. Most of his asides were distracting and did little other than draw attention to himself. If comic relief is needed in the next debate, I nominate Ali Wong for that role.
This early in an election, the first goal for any candidate in a debate is not to make a very damaging mistake or gaffe. All five candidates avoided that fate. A second goal is to land at one liner of one kind or another that is the headline the next day and goes viral. Nobody quite did that last night.
If you pardon the baseball metaphor, none of the candidates struck out and nobody hit any home runs with one liners- although Aaron Peskin hit a few doubles off the wall by explaining how he has “ the best housing record you’ve never heard of” and through his “follow the money” closing statement. Overall, the candidates, mostly drew a few walks, hit a bunch of singles, and maybe a few ground outs.
The debate rules led to little back-and-forth because the candidates avoided referring to other candidates by name, which would have given the named opponent an opportunity for rebuttal. Nonetheless, each candidate pursued a different strategy and presented themselves to the voters. The major takeaways for each candidate in the order from left to right in which they were arrayed on the stage were:
Asha Safai seems like decent hard-working guy with an excellent story. In a city where the terms centrist and moderate are overused, and misused, Safai seemed the genuine article. He is thoughtful and measured, but with some progressive instincts. The problem for Safai is that in both his opening and closing statements he presented himself as the candidate for voters looking for a progressive with the "experience and track record to fight for all San Franciscans." Even the most casual observers would have to recognize that candidate is Peskin not Safai.
Mark Farrell appeared much more comfortable in front of an audience at City Arts than when I saw him speak last month at the Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club. I wonder why. Farrell seems genuine in that he is comfortable in the skin of a rich white guy who wants to make San Francisco better for people like him. He and Lurie are both the voice of the caviar kvetchers, wealthy San Franciscans who feel compelled, for whatever reason, to constantly overstate the problems facing the City.
Farrell had some strange moments including when he described putting a bike lane in front of his home when he was a Supervisor in a tone that suggested that had been a personal sacrifice. He also frequently referred to his tenure as mayor like he was Gavin Newsom or Willie Brown. Dude was mayor for fewer than 200 days. Farrell is nonetheless an interesting hybrid of old and new conservative San Francisco-something like the political lovechild of John Barbagelata and Garry Tan.
Daniel Lurie has yet to persuade me he is up to the job of being mayor. He seems like a decent guy with a genuine, if patronizing, sense of noblesse oblige. However, he failed to make a persuasive case that has a deep understanding of the structure of government or city policies. The argument that the people who created the problem cannot fix it, which is central to Lurie’s campaign, is always appealing on a surface level, but rarely is more deeply compelling, particularly because Lurie while never having been an office, is part of the political and financial elite that has governed San Francisco for decades. Therefore, he makes a very unconvincing outsider.
Lurie’s best moment of the debate might have been in response to a question about the $1.7 million toilet in Noe Valley, an obsession among a certain class of San Franciscans, despite ending up costing about one-seventh of that amount. Lurie began his answer “I used that toilet yesterday. Wasn't bad."
London Breed has spent so much of her tenure as mayor aligning with those criticizing almost everything about San Francisco, that her defense of her record did not really land. She ably discussed city government and her record, but had little memorable to say. Breed has the most natural charisma of any of the candidates, but it rarely came through last night. One exception was her use of the term “the guys” to refer to her opponents. That was smart and highlighted the reality that she is running against a bunch of white guys, but that was about it.
It was only the lightning round, in which Breed gave good answers on everything from drag queens to Juneteenth to burritos, that she seemed truly at ease, and her charisma became apparent. It is tough not to surmise that the Mayor is more comfortable with the fun ligher fare rather than the tougher substantive issues.
Aaron Peskin true to his reputation, was the most fluent on policy detail and raised important points that were overlooked by the other candidates. For example, when discussing public safety, he stressed community policing; on homelessness he emphasized homeless prevention, linking that to preserving tenant protections and helping tenants fight evictions. Peskin confidently pushed back against charges of NIMBYism and brought the receipts, pointing out his very strong record on affordable housing.
Peskin also had the most memorable closing statement when he stressed that he would be a mayor for working- and middle-class San Franciscans and unlike Breed, Farrell and Lurie is, and will, not, be beholden to billionaire donors and real estate speculators.
There are still amost five months between now and when voting ends. This first debate highlighted some of the differences between the candidates, as Peskin and Safai focused their messages on affordability and a San Francisco for all while Lurie, Farrell and Breed stressed the need for more cops and embraced a trickle down approach to housing. However, the basic frame of the race, that it will be very close, did not change because of the first debate.