Voters have grown exhausted with the quality-of-life crises
In a city long synonymous with progressive idealism, San Francisco is quietly rewriting its own political story. Mayor Daniel Lurie, a moderate Democrat with deep civic roots, has consolidated power around a centrist coalition that now commands a 74% approval rating — a figure that speaks less to personality than to a collective weariness with disorder, neglect, and the gap between political vision and lived experience. The June primary results, with moderate supervisors winning decisively and a union-backed corporate tax measure turned away, suggest this is not a momentary correction but a sustained renegotiation of what San Francisco expects from those who govern it.
- After years of rising crime, open drug markets, and a hollowing downtown, San Francisco voters have reached a breaking point with progressive governance — and they are making that frustration legible at the ballot box.
- Mayor Lurie's centrist machine, anchored by the Believe in SF PAC and its $1.8 million war chest, is no longer an insurgent force — it is the new establishment, systematically flipping supervisor seats and defeating measures it opposes.
- The progressive coalition that once defined the city's political identity has lost key races by wide margins, leaving its movement fractured and searching for a path back to relevance in terrain it once owned.
- Tangible signals — cleaner neighborhoods, downtown revitalization, a mayor praised even by President Trump — are giving voters reasons to believe the centrist bet is paying off, sustaining Lurie's momentum heading into the next political cycle.
- The deeper question hanging over this realignment is durability: whether moderate governance can hold voter confidence long enough to become the city's new normal, or whether frustration will eventually find a new direction to run.
San Francisco is undergoing a political transformation that would have seemed implausible just a few years ago. Mayor Daniel Lurie — a moderate Democrat and heir to the Levi Strauss fortune — now governs with a 74% approval rating in a city that built its national identity on progressive activism. The shift reflects something more than a typical electoral swing: residents grew exhausted with the accumulated crises of the pandemic era, from open drug markets and retail theft to homelessness that made entire neighborhoods feel abandoned.
Lurie's consolidation of power did not happen by accident. His 2024 defeat of incumbent London Breed was the culmination of years of organized centrist mobilization. At the center of that effort sits Believe in SF, a nonprofit advocacy group whose political action committee raised nearly $1.8 million ahead of the June primary. The organization functioned, in effect, as Lurie's political machine — backing his preferred candidates and opposing measures he rejected. Business and technology-aligned groups like Neighbors for a Better San Francisco added further financial muscle, representing a fundamental shift in who controls the levers of local power.
The June results made the new balance of power unmistakable. Moderate supervisors Alan Wong and Stephen Sherrill won their races by substantial margins, while voters rejected a union-backed measure that would have taxed corporations with highly paid executives. These were not close calls — they were decisive repudiations of the progressive agenda that once dominated city politics.
The fallout for San Francisco's left has been severe. Seat after seat has flipped to centrist candidates, and what was once a reliable progressive stronghold is now contested terrain. Residents cite cleaner streets and downtown revitalization as evidence that a different governing philosophy can produce real results. Even President Trump offered public praise for the city's reversal — a detail that, more than any poll number, captures how far the political pendulum has traveled.
Whether this realignment proves durable or cyclical remains an open question. What is no longer in question is that San Francisco's political identity has shifted, and the movement that once defined it is no longer in command.
San Francisco is experiencing a political realignment that would have seemed unthinkable a few years ago. Mayor Daniel Lurie, a moderate Democrat and heir to the Levi Strauss fortune, now commands a 74% approval rating in a city that built its national reputation on progressive activism. The shift reflects something deeper than typical electoral swings: voters have grown exhausted with the quality-of-life crises that accumulated during and after the pandemic—crime, retail theft, open drug markets, and homelessness that made parts of the city feel unsafe and neglected.
Lurie's path to power began in 2024 when he defeated incumbent London Breed, capping off what amounted to a multi-year voter revolt against lenient approaches to public disorder. That victory was not an accident but the culmination of sustained political organizing. Behind Lurie's rise sits a well-funded centrist apparatus, most visibly represented by Believe in SF, a nonprofit advocacy group that has quietly become one of the city's most consequential political forces. The organization's political action committee raised nearly $1.8 million ahead of the June primary, deploying those resources to back Lurie's preferred candidates and ballot measures. It is, in effect, his political machine.
The results of that investment were unmistakable. Two of Lurie's moderate allies on the board of supervisors, Alan Wong and Stephen Sherrill, won competitive races by substantial margins. Voters also rejected a union-backed ballot measure that would have imposed new taxes on large corporations with what the measure called overpaid executives—a proposal Lurie opposed. These were not narrow victories but decisive rejections of the progressive agenda that once dominated San Francisco politics.
Behind Believe in SF stands another layer of centrist infrastructure. Groups like Neighbors for a Better San Francisco, backed by business and technology interests, have poured millions into local contests to keep the city on a moderate course. The scale of this spending represents a fundamental shift in San Francisco's political economy. For decades, the city's left wing controlled the narrative and the machinery of local power. Now, well-funded centrist organizations are doing the same work, and they are winning.
Lurie's 74% approval rating is not merely a number—it reflects genuine voter sentiment about the direction of the city. Residents point to downtown revitalization efforts and cleaner neighborhoods as tangible evidence that a different approach to governance can produce results. The political transformation has been so pronounced that it caught the attention of President Donald Trump, who publicly praised San Francisco's efforts to reverse its trajectory. For a city that had become synonymous with progressive governance and its perceived failures, such praise from a Republican president signals how far the political pendulum has swung.
The fallout for San Francisco's progressive wing has been severe. In recent supervisor elections, moderate candidates have systematically flipped key seats, defeating progressive incumbents by wide margins. What was once a reliable progressive stronghold is now contested terrain, with centrist forces holding the upper hand. Lurie's grip on local governance has consolidated around this centrist coalition, and the political momentum appears to be running in his direction.
The question now is whether this represents a durable realignment or a cyclical correction. Voters who embraced progressive policies during the 2010s have now embraced their opposite, driven by frustration with tangible problems: streets that felt unsafe, businesses closing, visible disorder. Whether Lurie's moderate approach can sustain voter confidence over time, or whether the pendulum will swing again, remains to be seen. What is clear is that San Francisco's political identity has shifted, and the progressive movement that once defined the city has lost its grip on power.
Citações Notáveis
Lurie's political machine has established itself as one of the most deep-pocketed forces in San Francisco— Politico reporting
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
What made San Francisco voters turn away from progressive governance so decisively?
The pandemic and its aftermath created a breaking point. Crime, retail theft, drug markets, and homelessness became visible, persistent problems that people experienced daily. Progressive policies that had seemed aspirational began to feel like they weren't working. Voters wanted change.
Is this just about Lurie's personality, or is there a deeper structural shift happening?
It's structural. The money tells the story. Groups like Believe in SF and Neighbors for a Better San Francisco have built a centrist political machine with real resources. That's not a personality cult—that's organized power. The moderate coalition has the funding, the candidates, and now the electoral victories.
A 74% approval rating is remarkably high. What's driving that?
Voters see concrete results they can point to: downtown is revitalizing, neighborhoods are cleaner. After years of feeling like the city was declining, there's a sense that a different approach is producing tangible improvements. That builds confidence.
Does this mean progressives are finished in San Francisco?
Not necessarily finished, but they've lost control of the machinery. The supervisor races show moderate candidates winning decisively. The corporate tax measure failed. The momentum is clearly centrist right now. Whether that holds depends on whether Lurie's policies continue to deliver results people care about.
Why would Trump praise San Francisco's shift?
Because it represents a rejection of progressive governance, which is politically useful for him. A major Democratic city moving toward centrist policies is a symbolic victory, regardless of the actual reasons voters made that choice.