2019 →
← 2016
|
2018 San Francisco elections |
---|
Election dates |
Filing deadline: January 9, 2018, June 12, 2018, and August 10, 2018 |
General election: November 6, 2018 Special election: June 5, 2018 |
Election stats |
Offices up: Mayor, Board of supervisor, Assessor-recorder, Public defender, County board of education, Community college board, Superior court judge, BART Board District 8 |
Total seats up: 16 (click here for the mayoral election) |
Election type: Nonpartisan |
Other municipal elections |
U.S. municipal elections, 2018 |
San Francisco held elections for five seats on the board of supervisors on November 6, 2018. The winners maintained a progressive majority on the board that was first established in a special election on June 5, 2018, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.[1] Elections for city assessor-recorder, public defender, county board of education members, superior court judge, and seats on the community college board and the BART board were also on the ballot on November 6, 2018. The deadline for candidates to file to run for the board of supervisors seats was June 12, 2018, and the deadline for the other offices was August 10, 2018.
San Francisco also held special elections for mayor and the District 8 seat on the Board of Supervisors on June 5, 2018. The special mayoral election was to fill the term of late Mayor Ed Lee, who died in December 2017. Supervisor Mark Farrell served as interim mayor. Click here for more information about that race.
In the special election for District 8 of the Board of Supervisors, progressive Rafael Mandelman defeated moderate incumbent Jeff Sheehy in a special election for San Francisco Board of Supervisors District 8. Mandelman's win gave progressives a 6-5 majority on the Board of Supervisors.[2][3]
Incumbent Mark Farrell, who was term-limited, was selected as interim mayor on January 23, 2017.
General election candidates
Incumbent Katy Tang did not file to run for re-election.[5]
General election candidates
Incumbent Jane Kim was term-limited.
General election candidates
General election candidates
Incumbent Malia Cohen was term-limited.
General election candidates
General election candidates
General election candidates
General election candidates
General election candidates
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
Progressive Rafael Mandelman defeated moderate incumbent Jeff Sheehy in a special election for San Francisco Board of Supervisors District 8. Mandelman's win gave progressives a 6-5 majority on the Board of Supervisors.[8][9]
Moderates held a six-vote majority on the 11-member board heading into the special election. According to Beyond Chron, the more progressive candidate had not won in District 8 since 2000.[10]
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "the distinction [between the two blocs] rests on three issues: land use, taxation and regulation. Progressives push for more affordable housing, tighter restrictions on tech companies and higher taxes for corporations. Moderates tend to be pro-development, pro-tech and pro-business."[11]
Although both candidates emphasized their independence from the factions and their ideological similarities, they differed on how to address issues related to housing, policing, and elections policy. Media outlets also wrote that their roles began to change in recent years, with Sheehy breaking away from the moderates and Mandelman moving closer to them.
Mandelman only temporarily filled the seat. He ran again in the regular election for the full term on November 6, 2018.
Sheehy was appointed in January 2017 to fill the vacancy created by the election of Supervisor Scott Wiener to the state Senate. Click here to read more about the governing majority on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.[12]
San Francisco Board of Supervisors, District 8 Special Election, 2018 | ||
---|---|---|
Candidate | Vote % | Votes |
Rafael Mandelman | 60.46% | 12,547 |
Jeff Sheehy Incumbent | 37.61% | 7,804 |
Lawrence Dagesse | 1.93% | 401 |
Total Votes | 20,752 | |
Source: San Francisco Department of ElectionsThese election results are unofficial and will be updated after official vote totals are made available. |
Primary candidates
This primary was canceled and this candidate was elected:
Primary candidates
This primary was canceled and this candidate was elected:
Primary candidates
This primary was canceled and this candidate was elected:
Primary candidates
Primary candidates
This primary was canceled and this candidate was elected:
Primary candidates
This primary was canceled and this candidate was elected:
Primary candidates
Primary candidates
This primary was canceled and this candidate was elected:
Primary candidates
Primary candidates
This primary was canceled and this candidate was elected:
Primary candidates
Primary candidates
This primary was canceled and this candidate was elected:
Primary candidates
This primary was canceled and this candidate was elected:
Jeff Sheehy was appointed to the District 8 seat in January 2017 to fill the vacancy created by the election of Supervisor Scott Wiener to the California State Senate. He became a member of the moderate faction on the board.
Sheehy's experience includes service as the president of the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club and work as the communications director for the University of California San Francisco's AIDS Research Institute, an HIV/AIDS advisor to then-Mayor Gavin Newsom, and a victims' advocate in the San Francisco District Attorney's Office.[15][16] As an activist, he helped draw up the city's Equal Benefits Ordinance that prohibited the city from contracting with vendors that did not provide full benefits to LGBTQ couples.[10]
Sheehy received endorsements from his predecessor, state Sen. Wiener, and interim Mayor Farrell.[14][17]
Mandelman ran for the District 8 position as a member of the progressive faction. He ran for the Board of Supervisors in 2010, losing to Scott Wiener, and then was elected to the community college board in 2012 and 2016.[10]
Mandelman's experience includes work as an urban development attorney and service as a commissioner on the San Francisco Board of Appeals, the chair of the San Francisco LGBT Center, and the president of the Noe Valley Democratic Club and the District 8 Democratic Club.[18]
Mandelman received endorsements from the California Nurses Association, the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club, the National Union of Healthcare Workers, the San Francisco Tenants Union, the Sierra Club, former state Sen. Mark Leno, former state Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) board member Bevan Dufty, BART board member Lateefah Simon, former San Francisco Mayor Art Agnos, and San Francisco Supervisors Sandra Lee Fewer, Jane Kim, Aaron Peskin, Hillary Ronen, and Norman Yee.[19]
As of January 27, 2018, Ballotpedia was not able to locate information about Lawrence Dagesse. To notify us of information about this candidate, please email us.
The San Francisco Bay Times asked Sheehy and Mandelman for their positions on multiple issues facing the district. Click "show" on the boxes below to view the candidates' responses to select questions from the Bay Times' questionnaire. To view their responses to all of the questions, click here.
Question: Several San Francisco neighborhoods comprise District 8, such as The Castro and Noe Valley. What do you believe are the most pressing issues facing some of these neighborhoods, and how might the issues overlap or, conversely, be unique to each location?
Candidate responses | |
---|---|
Candidate | Response |
Jeff Sheehy (i) | "I am honored to represent District 8, and have worked to respond to the unique needs in each neighborhood. In Mission Dolores and Dolores Heights, we convened the Recreation and Park Department, Police Department, Public Works and Public Utilities Commission to improve the area around Dolores Park. In the Castro, we’ve partnered with the Castro Merchants, Community Benefit District and local realtors to fill retail vacancies and improve public spaces. We’ve helped deliver pedestrian improvements in Diamond Heights, increase safety at Twin Peaks and bring the quality-of-life Fix-It team to Glen Park, the Castro and Duboce Triangle.
|
Rafael Mandelman | "District 8’s neighborhoods are distinct and have different concerns. For example, vacant storefronts are especially vexing concerns in the Castro and Noe Valley, but other issues are higher priorities for folks living in other parts of the District. Still, there are also issues that cut across neighborhoods. Homelessness and mental illness are more apparent in the Castro, but no one living in San Francisco can escape these problems. Similarly, concerns around property crime, traffic congestion and unreliable public transit cut across the District’s neighborhoods. And parents in every neighborhood want to be able to send their children to a great school that is close by." |
Question: Cleve Jones told us that he believes housing is the LGBTQ community’s most pressing need now in San Francisco. What do you specifically plan to do to address that need, while also maintaining quality of life, giving attention to environmental concerns and keeping reasonable levels of density?
Candidate responses | |
---|---|
Candidate | Response |
Jeff Sheehy (i) | "The first and most important thing we need to do is to protect people in existing housing and preserve rent-controlled housing. I worked to pass crucial legislation to reduce fraudulent owner-move in evictions and strongly support our City’s small sites program, which buys properties to protect existing tenants. In the budget, I secured millions to fund housing subsidies for seniors, people with disabilities and people with HIV/AIDS.
I also support housing development in the City’s pipeline that will add thousands of units at Pier 70, Mission Rock and right on Market Street where the Plumbers’ union hall current sits next to an underused parking lot. Mayor Lee’s Executive Directive to build at least 5,000 units per year and accelerate bringing these units to market is a great first step and I wholeheartedly support that approach." |
Rafael Mandelman | "I agree with Cleve. Too many LGBT seniors live in fear of eviction and too many LGBT youth come to San Francisco seeking refuge, only to find themselves living on the streets. I believe we can and must increase the City’s housing supply for all income levels, but I believe we need to dramatically increase the City’s production of affordable housing for middle and lower income folks.
|
Question: There is concern that San Francisco is losing its diversity in all respects: racial, economic, age-related, LGBT and more. What specifically can be done to help improve overall diversity within District 8 and the city as a whole?
Candidate responses | |
---|---|
Candidate | Response |
Jeff Sheehy (i) | "We are working with the Human Rights Commission to convene a community meeting to address issues of racial and socio-economic diversity in District 8 and welcome ideas from the community.
|
Rafael Mandelman | "Housing unaffordability is the greatest threat to diversity in District 8, the city and indeed the region. As I have said, we need to build more housing affordable to folks at all income levels. But we also need to ensure that all San Franciscans are in a position to benefit from the economic opportunities being created in our midst. That’s why I want to see the City work with the Unified School District to ensure that every public school in San Francisco is a great school, and it’s why I am so proud of my work to save City College and make it free for San Francisco residents. As a Supervisor, I will continue to work with the School District, the College, great non-profits like JVS (which works with unemployed people to help them find them meaningful and sustaining work) and our local employers to ensure that the incredible economic opportunities being created in our city and our region reach the greatest number of our people." |
Question: The Castro feels less safe to us lately. Members of our team have experienced multiple instances of theft, expensive-to-repair car window breakages and intimidating encounters with mentally ill people. Discussions with store owners reveal that many share our concerns. In fact, while we were having one such discussion, a store owner had to stop a gang of shoplifters. To what do you attribute the perceived increase in crime, and what steps do you plant to take to make The Castro and other neighborhoods within District 8 safer for residents and visitors?
Candidate responses | |
---|---|
Candidate | Response |
Jeff Sheehy (i) | "Multiple factors drive the increase in crime. One is what you mention, people in acute states of behavioral health distress, which can include severe, chronic mental illness and substance use, especially crystal meth. One need is for additional behavioral health beds, which are coming online. We also need more cooperation from the conservator and judges in assisting those with severe chronic mental illness to stay on their medications.
I support the Adult Probation Department in their pilot to intensely monitor repeat offenders out on probation. This program is so far trending positively in reducing incidents of re-offending. I also strongly support community organizing via neighborhood watches (SF SAFE groups) to enhance prevention. I have worked with several SF SAFE groups in District 8 and I included a SFPD community liaison position to work with SAFE groups and help establish new ones and also coordinate with SFPD." |
Rafael Mandelman | "The Castro is a neighborhood in need of some serious love and attention. I have been spending time in the Castro since I was in College, and I share the sense that all is not well in the neighborhood. Mentally ill and drug addicted folks are being left to rot on our sidewalks, petty property crime is on the rise, and I am hearing too frequently about friends and acquaintances getting assaulted.
|
In interviews with the San Francisco Examiner, Jeff Sheehy and Rafael Mandelman both indicated that they were similar ideologically. Sheehy said, "my opponent’s moved in my [political] direction,” and Mandelman said, “I don’t know that there are huge ideological differences between us.” The interviews revealed differences on the following issues.[23]
The candidates disagreed about whether the Board of Supervisors should have replaced Board of Supervisors President London Breed as interim mayor. Breed became the interim mayor following the death of Mayor Ed Lee in December 2017, and the Board voted to replace her with Supervisor Mark Farrell in January 2018.
The candidates disagreed on a ballot measure offered by Supervisor Aaron Peskin that would prevent appointees to boards and commissions from running for office without first resigning their positions. It would not apply to elected officials.[24]
Although the candidates agreed that housing policy was a top priority, they endorsed different policies for how to approach the Housing for All ballot measure, which was up in June 2018. The measure would tax commercial rents at a higher rate in order to pay for 10,000 low- and middle-income housing accommodations and homeless shelters over 10 years.[25]
The candidates disagreed on a state Senate bill from Scott Wiener that would change city zoning codes to allow for denser development near transit.
The figures in the tables below were from reports submitted by the candidates for 2017. They are reproduced below as presented by the candidates in their report summaries.[26]
San Francisco Board of Supervisors District 8, Special Election | |||
---|---|---|---|
Candidate | Total contributions received | Total expenditures made | Ending cash balance |
Jeff Sheehy (i) | $182,435.91 | $116,942.62 | $71,238.19 |
Rafael Mandelman | $165,482.39 | $135,625.41 | $32,683.53 |
Lawrence Dagesse | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
To notify us of other endorsements, please email us.
Click [show] to see more endorsements | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
Click [show] to see more endorsements | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
Moderates held a six-vote majority on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors until January 23, 2018, when then-District 2 Supervisor Mark Farrell was selected by his colleagues as interim mayor.[21] Farrell succeeded Mayor Ed Lee, who died of a heart attack on December 12, 2017, and he served as interim mayor until a new mayor was chosen in the June mayoral special election.[22]
Moderates reclaimed their sixth vote on January 30, 2018, when Farrell-appointee Catherine Stefani was sworn in to replace Farrell on the board.[31][32]
Sheehy was appointed by moderate Ed Lee, but, after Lee's death, he became more independent from the faction, most notably by voting with progressives to instill Mark Farrell as interim mayor over moderate London Breed. Mandelman, in contrast, was historically a progressive and supported policies such as a city income tax and local control of development projects. However, he voted in favor of budget cuts in 2015 and 2016 while sitting on the City College board (which angered the teachers union), began to call for increases in police hiring, and received the endorsements of moderate influencers like the San Francisco Chronicle.[33][34]
San Francisco Board of Supervisors, March 2018 | |||
---|---|---|---|
District | Officeholder | Affiliation | Seat up for election in 2018 |
1 | Sandra Lee Fewer | Progressive | No |
2 | Catherine Stefani | Moderate | Yes |
3 | Aaron Peskin | Progressive | No |
4 | Katy Tang | Moderate | Yes |
5 | London Breed | Moderate | No |
6 | Jane Kim | Progressive | Yes |
7 | Norman Yee | Progressive | No |
8 | Jeff Sheehy | Moderate | Yes |
9 | Hillary Ronen | Progressive | No |
10 | Malia Cohen | Moderate | Yes |
11 | Ahsha Safai | Moderate | No |
At the end of 2018, Democrats held mayorships in 61 of the 100 largest cities in the country. Out of the twenty-five mayoral elections that were held in 2018 in the 100 largest cities, two party changes occurred by year's end. In the election in Lexington, Kentucky, Republican Linda Gorton won the seat, replacing former Democratic Mayor Jim Gray. In Virginia Beach, Virginia, Republican Bob Dyer won the seat, replacing former independent Mayor Louis Jones. Click here to learn more.
San Francisco is a city in California. It is consolidated with the County of San Francisco, which means that the city and county share a government and their boundaries are coterminous. As of 2013, San Francisco's population was 837,442.[36]
The city of San Francisco uses a strong mayor and city council system. In this form of municipal government, the city council serves as the city's primary legislative body and the mayor serves as the city's chief executive.[37]
The following table displays demographic data provided by the United States Census Bureau.
Demographic data for San Francisco, California (2015) | ||
---|---|---|
San Francisco | California | |
Total population: | 840,763 | 38,993,940 |
Land area (square miles): | 47 | 155,779 |
Race and ethnicity[38] | ||
White: | 48.7% | 61.8% |
Black/African American: | 5.6% | 5.9% |
Asian: | 33.8% | 13.7% |
Native American: | 0.3% | 0.7% |
Pacific Islander: | 0.4% | 0.4% |
Two or more: | 4.6% | 4.5% |
Hispanic/Latino: | 15.3% | 38.4% |
Education | ||
High school graduation rate: | 87% | 81.8% |
College graduation rate: | 53.8% | 31.4% |
Income | ||
Median household income: | $81,294 | $61,818 |
Persons below poverty level: | 13.2% | 18.2% |
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) |
This section details the partisan control of federal and state positions in California heading into the 2018 elections.
California held elections for the following positions in 2018:
Demographic data for California | ||
---|---|---|
California | U.S. | |
Total population: | 38,993,940 | 316,515,021 |
Land area (sq mi): | 155,779 | 3,531,905 |
Race and ethnicity** | ||
White: | 61.8% | 73.6% |
Black/African American: | 5.9% | 12.6% |
Asian: | 13.7% | 5.1% |
Native American: | 0.7% | 0.8% |
Pacific Islander: | 0.4% | 0.2% |
Two or more: | 4.5% | 3% |
Hispanic/Latino: | 38.4% | 17.1% |
Education | ||
High school graduation rate: | 81.8% | 86.7% |
College graduation rate: | 31.4% | 29.8% |
Income | ||
Median household income: | $61,818 | $53,889 |
Persons below poverty level: | 18.2% | 11.3% |
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in California. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. |
As of July 2016, California had a population of approximately 39,000,000 people, with its three largest cities being Los Angeles (pop. est. 4.0 million), San Diego (pop. est. 1.4 million), and San Jose (pop. est. 1 million).[39][40]
This section provides an overview of federal and state elections in California from 2000 to 2016. All data comes from the California Secretary of State.
This chart shows the results of the presidential election in California every year from 2000 to 2016.
Election results (President of the United States), California 2000-2016 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | First-place candidate | First-place candidate votes (%) | Second-place candidate | Second-place candidate votes (%) | Margin of victory (%) |
2016 | Hillary Clinton | 61.7% | Donald Trump | 31.6% | 30.1% |
2012 | Barack Obama | 60.2% | Mitt Romney | 37.1% | 23.1% |
2008 | Barack Obama | 61.1% | John McCain | 37% | 24.1% |
2004 | John Kerry | 54.4% | George W. Bush | 44.4% | 10% |
2000 | Al Gore | 53.5% | George W. Bush | 41.7% | 11.8% |
This chart shows the results of U.S. Senate races in California from 2000 to 2016. Every state has two Senate seats, and each seat goes up for election every six years. The terms of the seats are staggered so that roughly one-third of the seats are up every two years.
Election results (U.S. Senator), California 2000-2016 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | First-place candidate | First-place candidate votes (%) | Second-place candidate | Second-place candidate votes (%) | Margin of victory (%) |
2016 | Kamala Harris | 61.6% | Loretta Sanchez | 38.4% | 23.2% |
2012 | Dianne Feinstein | 62.5% | Elizabeth Emken | 37.5% | 25% |
2010 | Barbara Boxer | 52.2% | Carly Fiorina | 42.2% | 10% |
2006 | Dianne Feinstein | 59.5% | Richard Mountjoy | 35.1% | 24.4% |
2004 | Barbara Boxer | 57.8% | Bill Jones | 37.8% | 20% |
2000 | Dianne Feinstein | 55.9% | Tom Campbell | 36.6% | 19.3% |
This chart shows the results of the four gubernatorial elections held between 2000 and 2016. Gubernatorial elections are held every four years in California.
Election results (Governor), California 2000-2016 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | First-place candidate | First-place candidate votes (%) | Second-place candidate | Second-place candidate votes (%) | Margin of victory (%) |
2014 | Jerry Brown | 60% | Neel Kashkari | 40% | 20% |
2010 | Jerry Brown | 53.8% | Meg Whitman | 40.9% | 12.9% |
2006 | Arnold Schwarzenegger | 55.9% | Phil Angelides | 39.0% | 16.9% |
2002 | Gray Davis | 47.3% | Bill Simon | 42.4% | 4.9% |
This chart shows the number of Democrats and Republicans who were elected to represent California in the U.S. House from 2000 to 2016. Elections for U.S. House seats are held every two years.
A state government trifecta occurs when one party controls both chambers of the state legislature and the governor's office.
California Party Control: 1992-2021
Sixteen years of Democratic trifectas • No Republican trifectas
Scroll left and right on the table below to view more years.
There are no Pivot Counties in California. Pivot Counties are counties that voted for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012 and for Donald Trump (R) in 2016. Altogether, the nation had 206 Pivot Counties, with most being concentrated in upper midwestern and northeastern states.
In the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton (D) won California with 61.7 percent of the vote. Donald Trump (R) received 31.6 percent. In presidential elections between 1900 and 2016, California voted Republican 53.33 percent of the time and Democratic 43.33 percent of the time. In the five presidential elections between 2000 and 2016, California voted Democratic all five times. In 2016, California had 55 electoral votes, which was the most of any state. The 55 electoral votes were 10.2 percent of all 538 available electoral votes and were 20.4 percent of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the election.
The following table details results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections by state Assembly districts in California. Click [show] to expand the table. The "Obama," "Romney," "Clinton," and "Trump" columns describe the percent of the vote each presidential candidate received in the district. The "2012 Margin" and "2016 Margin" columns describe the margin of victory between the two presidential candidates in those years. The "Party Control" column notes which party held that seat heading into the 2018 general election. Data on the results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections broken down by state legislative districts was compiled by Daily Kos.[41][42]
In 2012, Barack Obama (D) won 58 out of 80 state Assembly districts in California with an average margin of victory of 38.4 points. In 2016, Hillary Clinton (D) won 66 out of 80 state Assembly districts in California with an average margin of victory of 40.3 points. Clinton won 11 districts controlled by Republicans heading into the 2018 elections. |
In 2012, Mitt Romney (R) won 22 out of 80 state Assembly districts in California with an average margin of victory of 12.2 points. In 2016, Donald Trump (R) won 14 out of 80 state Assembly districts in California with an average margin of victory of 13 points. |
2016 Presidential Results by State Assembly District | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
District | Obama | Romney | 2012 Margin | Clinton | Trump | 2016 Margin | Party Control |
1 | 39.63% | 57.31% | R+17.7 | 36.09% | 56.75% | R+20.7 | R |
2 | 64.68% | 30.51% | D+34.2 | 62.20% | 28.98% | D+33.2 | D |
3 | 42.41% | 54.46% | R+12.1 | 39.47% | 53.31% | R+13.8 | R |
4 | 63.16% | 33.86% | D+29.3 | 63.03% | 29.95% | D+33.1 | D |
5 | 41.27% | 55.92% | R+14.7 | 38.51% | 54.85% | R+16.3 | R |
6 | 38.59% | 59.09% | R+20.5 | 41.17% | 52.02% | R+10.9 | R |
7 | 67.59% | 29.61% | D+38 | 67.63% | 25.69% | D+41.9 | D |
8 | 51.72% | 45.62% | D+6.1 | 51.77% | 41.03% | D+10.7 | D |
9 | 60.56% | 37.52% | D+23 | 61.47% | 32.89% | D+28.6 | D |
10 | 73.76% | 23.28% | D+50.5 | 75.65% | 17.96% | D+57.7 | D |
11 | 60.96% | 36.87% | D+24.1 | 58.86% | 35.17% | D+23.7 | D |
12 | 45.19% | 52.50% | R+7.3 | 43.11% | 51.05% | R+7.9 | R |
13 | 64.23% | 33.88% | D+30.4 | 62.97% | 31.79% | D+31.2 | D |
14 | 68.80% | 28.72% | D+40.1 | 69.55% | 24.47% | D+45.1 | D |
15 | 86.82% | 9.56% | D+77.3 | 87.39% | 7.04% | D+80.4 | D |
16 | 57.74% | 40.10% | D+17.6 | 64.47% | 29.23% | D+35.2 | R |
17 | 87.07% | 9.36% | D+77.7 | 88.12% | 6.95% | D+81.2 | D |
18 | 86.89% | 10.23% | D+76.7 | 85.89% | 8.44% | D+77.5 | D |
19 | 78.94% | 18.38% | D+60.6 | 81.63% | 13.34% | D+68.3 | D |
20 | 75.74% | 22.15% | D+53.6 | 75.52% | 19.12% | D+56.4 | D |
21 | 55.61% | 42.03% | D+13.6 | 54.63% | 39.46% | D+15.2 | D |
22 | 71.43% | 26.31% | D+45.1 | 75.16% | 19.75% | D+55.4 | D |
23 | 43.46% | 54.71% | R+11.2 | 43.95% | 50.78% | R+6.8 | R |
24 | 72.16% | 24.96% | D+47.2 | 78.19% | 15.93% | D+62.3 | D |
25 | 72.40% | 25.26% | D+47.1 | 73.61% | 20.90% | D+52.7 | D |
26 | 41.15% | 56.68% | R+15.5 | 41.54% | 52.93% | R+11.4 | R |
27 | 76.36% | 21.54% | D+54.8 | 77.76% | 17.29% | D+60.5 | D |
28 | 66.64% | 30.77% | D+35.9 | 70.63% | 23.08% | D+47.6 | D |
29 | 69.95% | 26.66% | D+43.3 | 70.00% | 22.96% | D+47 | D |
30 | 66.99% | 30.86% | D+36.1 | 66.70% | 27.32% | D+39.4 | D |
31 | 61.98% | 36.21% | D+25.8 | 62.13% | 32.93% | D+29.2 | D |
32 | 56.20% | 41.81% | D+14.4 | 56.50% | 37.98% | D+18.5 | D |
33 | 41.80% | 55.51% | R+13.7 | 40.02% | 54.61% | R+14.6 | R |
34 | 33.96% | 63.85% | R+29.9 | 34.07% | 60.21% | R+26.1 | R |
35 | 47.82% | 49.42% | R+1.6 | 49.57% | 43.43% | D+6.1 | R |
36 | 48.79% | 48.48% | D+0.3 | 49.94% | 43.86% | D+6.1 | R |
37 | 60.97% | 36.28% | D+24.7 | 64.27% | 29.21% | D+35.1 | D |
38 | 46.73% | 50.84% | R+4.1 | 49.64% | 44.39% | D+5.2 | R |
39 | 73.75% | 23.67% | D+50.1 | 74.64% | 19.80% | D+54.8 | D |
40 | 53.14% | 44.72% | D+8.4 | 54.08% | 40.01% | D+14.1 | R |
41 | 59.74% | 37.72% | D+22 | 62.82% | 31.27% | D+31.5 | D |
42 | 44.98% | 52.93% | R+7.9 | 45.61% | 49.70% | R+4.1 | R |
43 | 67.35% | 29.62% | D+37.7 | 68.94% | 25.45% | D+43.5 | D |
44 | 52.37% | 45.51% | D+6.9 | 57.12% | 36.99% | D+20.1 | D |
45 | 63.46% | 34.12% | D+29.3 | 67.36% | 27.39% | D+40 | D |
46 | 73.73% | 23.65% | D+50.1 | 76.20% | 18.48% | D+57.7 | D |
47 | 71.49% | 26.54% | D+44.9 | 70.10% | 24.80% | D+45.3 | D |
48 | 64.08% | 33.44% | D+30.6 | 65.60% | 28.50% | D+37.1 | D |
49 | 64.69% | 33.26% | D+31.4 | 67.57% | 27.17% | D+40.4 | D |
50 | 70.79% | 26.51% | D+44.3 | 76.72% | 18.33% | D+58.4 | D |
51 | 83.48% | 13.50% | D+70 | 84.05% | 10.19% | D+73.9 | D |
52 | 65.01% | 32.92% | D+32.1 | 65.78% | 28.71% | D+37.1 | D |
53 | 84.64% | 12.59% | D+72 | 84.83% | 9.63% | D+75.2 | D |
54 | 83.62% | 13.88% | D+69.7 | 85.15% | 10.12% | D+75 | D |
55 | 45.77% | 52.23% | R+6.5 | 49.92% | 44.61% | D+5.3 | R |
56 | 62.14% | 36.26% | D+25.9 | 64.21% | 31.24% | D+33 | D |
57 | 63.71% | 34.01% | D+29.7 | 65.92% | 28.39% | D+37.5 | D |
58 | 70.24% | 27.80% | D+42.4 | 72.54% | 22.26% | D+50.3 | D |
59 | 93.24% | 5.19% | D+88 | 90.70% | 5.09% | D+85.6 | D |
60 | 51.32% | 46.31% | D+5 | 52.48% | 41.97% | D+10.5 | D |
61 | 63.43% | 34.55% | D+28.9 | 62.47% | 31.62% | D+30.9 | D |
62 | 80.81% | 17.00% | D+63.8 | 82.05% | 13.06% | D+69 | D |
63 | 76.06% | 21.73% | D+54.3 | 77.35% | 17.38% | D+60 | D |
64 | 88.74% | 9.98% | D+78.8 | 86.21% | 9.61% | D+76.6 | D |
65 | 51.90% | 45.68% | D+6.2 | 56.73% | 37.28% | D+19.4 | D |
66 | 54.18% | 43.24% | D+10.9 | 59.97% | 33.60% | D+26.4 | D |
67 | 39.61% | 58.33% | R+18.7 | 38.89% | 55.94% | R+17.1 | R |
68 | 42.55% | 55.12% | R+12.6 | 49.42% | 44.58% | D+4.8 | R |
69 | 67.37% | 30.30% | D+37.1 | 71.94% | 22.33% | D+49.6 | D |
70 | 67.38% | 29.93% | D+37.5 | 68.13% | 25.09% | D+43 | D |
71 | 38.47% | 59.51% | R+21 | 38.19% | 56.26% | R+18.1 | R |
72 | 46.71% | 51.06% | R+4.4 | 51.40% | 43.13% | D+8.3 | R |
73 | 38.68% | 59.36% | R+20.7 | 43.89% | 50.38% | R+6.5 | R |
74 | 45.14% | 52.42% | R+7.3 | 50.71% | 43.29% | D+7.4 | R |
75 | 39.42% | 58.50% | R+19.1 | 43.22% | 50.68% | R+7.5 | R |
76 | 48.76% | 49.04% | R+0.3 | 53.11% | 40.38% | D+12.7 | R |
77 | 48.25% | 49.83% | R+1.6 | 55.16% | 38.94% | D+16.2 | R |
78 | 63.15% | 34.08% | D+29.1 | 67.48% | 25.85% | D+41.6 | D |
79 | 61.21% | 36.91% | D+24.3 | 64.24% | 30.04% | D+34.2 | D |
80 | 69.47% | 28.67% | D+40.8 | 73.15% | 21.34% | D+51.8 | D |
Total | 60.35% | 37.19% | D+23.2 | 62.25% | 31.89% | D+30.4 | - |
Source: Daily Kos |
San Francisco, California | California | Municipal government | Other local coverage |
---|---|---|---|
|
<ref>
tag;
no text was provided for refs named chronicleendorsement
<ref>
tag;
no text was provided for refs named wienerendorsement
<ref>
tag;
no text was provided for refs named farrellendorsement
<ref>
tag;
no text was provided for refs named mandelmanendorsements
<ref>
tag;
no text was provided for refs named stefaniappoint
State of California Sacramento (capital) | |
---|---|
Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2021 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |