It did not take long after November 7 for San Francisco activists to begin considering possible opponents for Mayor Gavin Newsom next year. There are two views about challenging well-funded incumbent Mayors who do not appear politically vulnerable. Some believe it is risky not to challenge incumbents, as it leaves them feeling that they are not constrained by popular concerns. Others see a race involving a candidate with little chance of victory as unnecessarily divisive, as it can jeopardize future alliances between allies who split over the mayor’s race. The Los Angeles mayor’s race in 1997 and San Francisco’s in 1999 offer parallels to our situation, with both lacking a clear challenger at the start of the re-election year.

One year is a long time in politics. In fact, as Matt Gonzalez showed when he entered the Mayor’s race only a few months before the election and nearly won, what looks like a hopeless race against Mayor Newsom today could be seen as a winnable contest next June.

Nobody outside political consultant Jack Davis thought that Mayor Art Agnos was in political trouble in December 1990, and could possibly be defeated by former Police Chief Frank Jordan in 1991. But it happened.

In Los Angeles in 1997, Mayor Richard Riordan was headed to an easy re-election victory. Shortly before the deadline, then State Senator Tom Hayden entered the race. Hayden was clearly the most progressive candidate, but he had done nothing in the year prior to the election to build the grassroots campaign necessary to potentially defeat the well-financed Riordan.

The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor was among many groups forced to choose between a progressive with no chance of winning and an incumbent mayor that would potentially reward progressive support. Labor went with Riordan, and was criticized by some Hayden supporters for putting pragmatism over principle.

But from the perspective of the many public employee unions that strongly backed Riordan, endorsing Hayden would be an act not of principle, but of political suicide. No union should be asked to jeopardize its members’ interests because a progressive candidate decides to run a symbolic campaign.

In San Francisco in 1999, I was among those who thought Tom Ammiano should challenge incumbent Mayor Willie Brown. Although Brown performed strongly for tenants in 1998 and 1999, and had yet to back a controversial development project in the Mission’s Bryant Square, I nevertheless felt that the city needed a broader debate over its future direction than that provided under Brown’s one-man rule.

Ammiano was not inclined to run, so activists Robert Haaland and Tommi Avicolli-Mecca (who now writes regularly for Beyond Chron) took it upon themselves to build support for Ammiano’s entry into the race. While the duo’s “Run Tom Run” campaign failed to get him to declare his candidacy, it prompted a write-in vote that got Ammiano into the runoff.

There are differing views on the Ammiano-Brown runoff. Some believe it created the momentum that elected a district-elected slate of “anti-machine” Board of Supervisor candidates in 2000. Ammiano’s campaign is seen as bringing a new generation of activists into local politics, revitalizing a progressive movement that had been split over Brown’s pro-development policies.

I was excited by the prospect of the runoff, but the campaign quickly played out in a way that led me to reassess the wisdom of Ammiano’s entry into the race. The problem was that many Ammiano supporters saw the race in pure good vs. evil terms, despite some of the city’s longtime progressive forces---like HERE Local 2---working hard for the candidate (Brown) deemed evil.

The attempt to exaggerate the differences between Ammiano and Brown resulted in events like an “Evict the Mayor” protest at City Hall. Brown was described as responsible for increased evictions caused by the dot-com boom, even though the Mayor was chiefly responsible for the passage of strong restrictions on owner move-in evictions. Brown also won unanimous approval of a measure that, if not wrongly thrown out by the courts, would have prevented the epidemic of Ellis Act evictions by preventing TIC owners from converting rental units to owner-occupied housing.

While Brown faced progressive attacks, the more conservative side of his 1995 electoral coalition fought hard for the mayor and earned his political loyalty for the next four years. Brown interpreted the 1999 campaign as showing that progressives could not be trusted, and decided to stop trying to meet their needs.

Brown became a much more pro-development mayor after the 1999 runoff, and returned to his historic position as a strong ally of landlords. He continued to back organized labor, which strongly supported him despite Ammiano’s long history of union advocacy (Local 21 was the only major union to endorse Ammiano).

A progressive candidate challenging Newsom in 2007 would have to avoid both of the Hayden and Ammiano scenarios. This means that the candidacy has to be backed with real grassroots support, and it cannot run a scorched earth campaign that portrays Newsom and his supporters as evil.

Organized labor has done well by Mayor Newsom, and will surely back his re-election. Much of the gay and lesbian community is strongly behind Newsom, and those not so excited may be swayed by the argument that unseating him would send the wrong message about politicians who take high-profile stands for gay marriage.

So a challenge to Newsom starts without either of the two movements that help drive progressive politics in San Francisco.

In addition, in 1999 Mayor Brown controlled at least eight votes on the Board of Supervisors, so many saw the mayoral election as the only way to break his grip on power. In contrast, progressives often comprise a majority on the current Board, and, as the recent override of the mayor’s veto of foot patrols shows, Newsom cannot even count on a guaranteed four votes.

This leads to the conclusion, further supported by Ed Jew’s victory in the District 4 Supervisor’s race while the mayor’s candidate finished fourth, that the most potent mayoral challenger could come from the conservative to moderate camp. A Richard Riordan-type candidate who is wealthy enough to fund his own campaign, and who can attract Westside and Asian-American voters without scaring Chris Daly-type progressives into backing Newsom.

A businessperson with a winning personality, and no strong ideology other than a commitment to do what is best for San Francisco, could give Mayor Newsom his toughest fight. This challenger would not need political endorsements, but would appeal directly to “the people.”

Whether anyone fitting this description wants to run for San Francisco Mayor is unclear. But it may explain why Newsom is stressing the need to address quality of life issues in the neighborhoods as he enters his re-election year.

Send feedback to rshaw@beyondchron.org