In the end, Don Fisher’s fortune could not derail San Francisco’s “transit-first” policy. Proposition A (Muni Reform) has passed with a comfortable 55-44 landslide – and Proposition H (the Downtown Parking Initiative) suffered a humiliating 33-66 defeat. While Mayor Gavin Newsom has been comfortably re-elected, the almost-final numbers saw him dip below 70% – which means he did not beat Art Agnos’ historic margin of victory in the 1987 election. It also brings into question the Mayor’s stratospheric approval ratings that get repeatedly touted in the mainstream media. But Newsom can take solace in the fact that he won’t have to attend a monthly Board of Supervisors meeting – Proposition E (Question Time) has failed by a thin 48-51 margin.

The Elections Department provided new numbers yesterday afternoon – and with 95% of all votes counted, it is fair to definitively call each race. Prop A has widened its lead from a one-point squeaker in the early absentees – to an 11-point victory, giving Muni an extra $26 million in revenue. Prop H’s defeat became a decisive 2-1 blowout, protecting the City’s “transit-first” policy and preserving the fight against global warming. What this proved is that even in a low turnout election, progressives can defeat Republican C.E.O. Don Fisher and his Downtown business cronies.

“When you have a coalition of labor, environmental and community groups,” said Natasha Marsh, who ran the campaign to pass Prop A and defeat Prop H, “you can run an incredibly powerful field campaign that wins, and wins over all the money they throw at us. When politics connects and impacts us so deeply, communities and organizations from bike riders to workers to Chinatown bus riders get involved. We won because of volunteers – no question.”

Voter turnout was about 30% – the lowest for a municipal election in six years, and probably the lowest ever for a Mayoral race. While many have compared this year’s turnout to the fiercely contested Mayor's race four years ago, a low turnout was expected because Gavin Newsom had no serious opposition. But the last time we had such an uncontested race was Dianne Feinstein in 1983 – and 46% of San Franciscans still voted.

Despite no major challengers, Newsom’s re-elect numbers currently stand at 68.7% -- whereas in 1987 Art Agnos got 70% in a fiercely contested race with Supervisor Jack Molinari. This raises a question among progressives who had urged the need to run a strong mayoral candidate. If, for example, Chris Daly had run and the Mayor received a similar share of the vote, it would have been a landslide – and the message would be that progressives are in disarray. Instead, a record number of voters tuned out this election entirely – and over 30% who still showed up voted for a no-name challenger.

The one bright spot for Newsom was the 48-51 defeat of Prop E, which would have mandated the Mayor’s appearance at a monthly Board of Supervisors meeting. Newsom had prioritized its defeat, including a lavish fundraiser at socialite Dede Wilsey’s home, whereas practically no one campaigned for it at all. When the early absentee results came in, progressives were ecstatic to see that a measure everyone thought would lose – and lose big – was only three points behind.

But as I pointed out yesterday, as the Election Day votes started pouring in, Prop E’s defeat remained stagnant – whereas other progressive measures like Prop A picked up significant support. Political analysts and activists will ponder for weeks about this discrepancy, and there are three possible theories to explain it.

One is that as more people – especially progressives – start voting absentee, the trend that “early absentee” voters are more conservative no longer holds water. But that doesn’t explain how Prop A picked up significant support and Prop H’s margin of defeat widened as Election Day votes were counted. While it may be true that the trend is less drastic than it used to be, there’s no question that Election Day voters are still more progressive. So the result had to be about Prop E in particular.

Another theory is that most Newsom voters supported Prop A, while opposing Prop H and Prop E. While the Mayor barely lifted a finger to campaign for the transit propositions, his endorsement was featured on most “Yes on A” / “No on H” literature for an obvious reason – Newsom was popular, and was going to win. But his voters did not join progressives by voting for Prop E, since it was perceived as an “anti-Newsom” measure.

A third theory is one that I’ve been arguing for a while. San Franciscans are progressive on the issues – but because of gay marriage, universal health care and the hotel boycott, Gavin Newsom as a person is very popular. They don’t respond well when progressives take on the Mayor personally – but they vote with progressives when you take on the Mayor’s Downtown business allies. “Yes on A” and “No on H” was a message against Don Fisher. “Yes on E” was a message against Gavin Newsom.

When Question Time was on the ballot last year as an advisory measure, its passage by precinct mirrored the City’s progressive voting trends – except in District 8 (Castro), where it fared badly. The reason appears obvious to me: gay people like Gavin, but on substantive issues they are more progressive than the Mayor. So a measure perceived as “anti-Newsom” won’t fare well. I expect that when we get this year's break-down by precinct, we will find similar results with Prop E.

Progressives who oppose the Mayor personally, however, can take pride in one part of the results – as the Election Day votes came in, Quintin Mecke finished in second place.

Send feedback to paul@beyondchron.org