Is San Francisco still a progressive place? According the San Francisco Chronicle the answer after last night's election is no. And the SF Standard has come to the same conclusion:

Famously liberal San Francisco appeared to lurch to the right Tuesday, or at least move closer to the center, as frustrated voters approved two key propositions: one that increases police surveillance powers and curbs citizen oversight, and a second that will require some welfare recipients to be screened for drug use...

In particular, Propositions E and F agitated the competing camps of the city’s Democratic Party. The measures pitted progressives—generally a mix of far-left activists, neighborhood preservationists and voters who prioritize social justice issues and affordable housing—against pro-business, pro-development moderates who favor tougher policies on crime.

So what are Props E and F? Prop E will give a bit more leeway to SF police, allowing them to chase suspects and use drones. It also limits the power of the police commission. Prop F requires single adults on welfare to undergo drug screening and, if they test positive, they must enroll in drug treatment programs and must at least participate in them, though they can still get welfare if they continue to abuse drugs. Only those who refuse to go to treatment can be stripped of welfare payments. The program does not impact eligibility for food stamps.

Both measures E and F were supported by Mayor London Breed who has really staked her career on trying to do something about the city's crime and homelessness problems. They were opposed by progressives including the ACLU.

Breed had another win last night. She and other moderates in city government had opposed Prop. B which would have allowed for the hiring of more police officers to supplement the city's diminished police force, but only if the city acted to come up with additional money to pay for their salaries. It became known as the cop tax among critics. The idea originally started out as an effort to hire more cops but progressives led by City Supervisor Ahsha Safaí added the tax portion to the proposition as a poison pill, forcing the original sponsors to turn against it. 

So one the one hand the failure of Prop B was a win for moderates who argued SF residents shouldn't have to pay extra taxes for basic public safety. On the other hand, you could say the poison pill inserted by progressives worked since an effort to hire more cops has been blocked at least for now.

Still, it does look as if the trend which started with the recall of progressive DA Chesa Boudin and the subsequent recall of three very woke members of the school board hasn't ended yet. Whether people label themselves progressive or not on issues, they still expect city government to function.

Polling by GrowSF, a pro-business and public safety political group in the city, suggests that more voters identify as moderate than progressive. Polling by the group in February found that voters identified as 21% progressive, 32% liberal, 32% moderate and 8% conservative. Those numbers remained relatively flat compared to polling done by GrowSF in 2022.

“The electorate hasn’t changed. It’s just that elected officials have stopped doing their jobs well,” GrowSF co-founder Steven Buss said. “Across the ideological spectrum, everyone is frustrated.”

One thing that no one doubts, especially after last night, is that progressives in the city now face an uphill battle against a tide of moderate fundraising.

One message progressives agree on is that they’re in danger. They say the biggest challenge they will face in returning to power will be overcoming the enormous amount of money their opponents are wielding.

Moderates raised more than $1.5 million to elect candidates to the Democratic County Central Committee, which has often been ignored but holds enormous power: It endorses candidates, including for the coming mayoral, district attorney and Board of Supervisor elections.

Some progressives pointed to the rising influence of wealthy tech executives, some of whom have discovered a newfound interest in San Francisco politics. Tesla CEO Elon Musk, one of the world’s richest men, pledged to contribute $100,000 to oppose Preston’s reelection...

“We are currently being overwhelmed by the monumental amount of money for the first time in this city’s history,” [former mayor Art] Agnos said. “It’s millions and millions instead of thousands and thousands. That’s going to require a huge adjustment.”

There are still plenty of wealthy progressives in San Francisco who could help offset this new trend. Better to have them spend their money fighting races locally then to have them give it to Democrats who will spend it nationally.