☆ Opp Now contributors break down Election '24 wins, mistakes, & more (all parts together)
In this exclusive roundup series (consolidated below), 19 Opp Now contributors analyzed their most important post-election takeaways and what to expect going forward. (And, yep, despite some bummers, we believe—as always—there's far more reasons to be hopeful. ;-))
Biggest win or winner of the election?
Irene Smith, Independent Leadership Group leader, United Housing Alliance leader: From either a life or an election perspective—I love to watch the underdog. I am thrilled to see an indefatigable spirit that tilts at windmills again and again.
I saw this in the campaign of Ted Stroll. In California, it is mostly unacceptable to be an independent, of which I am a lifelong member. And in Silicon Valley, candidates who have grouped themselves under the title of Republican are often treated impersonally and with a distasteful avoidance. I watched as Ted (R) fearlessly went door-to-door knocking to explain to constituents that there was an alternative to incumbent Ash Kalra (D). May we all be more courageous in our inclusiveness.
Brian Holtz, Santa Clara County Libertarian Party secretary, Purissima Hills Water District director: I was glad to see a ray of hope for fans of electoral reform.
Incumbent San Francisco supervisor and “democratic socialist” Dean Preston would have won in a traditional, first-past-the-post voting system, but instead narrowly lost to tech entrepreneur Bilal Mahmood, thanks to Ranked Choice Voting (RCV).
As a Libertarian, I support RCV as a way voters can send a clearer signal of their preferences, instead of voting strategically for the lesser of two evils.
Another ray of hope is Prop. 33’s resounding loss.
Over 60 percent of voters rejected this brazen expansion of local authority for rent control, which Libertarians—and nearly all economists—oppose. Rent control just raises the drawbridge in favor of existing renters, and shuts out the often poorer people who need housing.
Government price controls, including of rental rates, inevitably create shortages—or exacerbate them. A dirty trick that, happily, we have averted.
John Inks, Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association board member: What impressed me most in this election was the defeat of Proposition 5.
Despite its support from the California Firefighters, League of Cities, League of Women Voters, and other government employee associations, 56 percent of voters rightly said no to Prop. 5, as the Silicon Valley and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Associations had recommended.
Prop. 5 would have been a savage attack on Prop. 13, slashing the two-thirds passage requirement for special taxes and certain bonds, thus eroding voters’ power to stem the tide of property taxes throughout California.
Fortunately, we will maintain the tax limitations—and vital protection of both homeowners and renters—of 1978’s landmark Prop. 13.
Tom Rubin, former SoCal Rapid Transit District CFO: School districts and environmental bonds. Republicans in the Central Valley and Mountains to the east of the Central Valley.
Tobin Gilman, San Jose community leader, retired Silicon Valley technology industry executive: The Housing Industrial Complex (HIC), a coalition of real estate, labor, and nonprofits that continue to pursue failed “housing first” policies. Prior to the election, the council was split between nine members aligned with the HIC coalition and two independents (Doan and Batra) who have been advocating a “shelter first” strategy. With the apparent defeat of Batra in D10, it appears the HIC has added another member to its majority. Its net gain could be temporary, however, if an independent is chosen to fill the vacancy in D3.
Gus Mattammal, Midcoast Community councilmember: At the state level, the biggest winners were the people of California. In passing Proposition 36 so overwhelmingly, they made a strong statement that they won't tolerate politicians compromising on public safety to achieve goals. Also, they voted down Proposition 5, which would have made it easier forever to raise everyone's taxes, here in a state that is already the 5th-highest taxed in the nation. Overall, the voters exercised a lot of practical, good judgment.
Mark Burns, Bay Area real estate agent: I thought Sam Liccardo was an interesting, big win.
Pierluigi Oliverio, San Jose planning commissioner, Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association board member: People in CA that want to maintain current tax levels and want more accountability and safety. Californians denying Prop 5 (lower new tax voting threshold) and Prop 6 (prison labor)—as well as passing Prop 36 (more aggressive approach to crime) spoke in a manner that is not typical for us.
Biggest repudiation?
Susan Shelley, Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association VP of communications: The biggest repudiation is the voters approving Prop 36 after Governor Newsom tried everything he could to prevent it from being on the ballot, and to put something on the ballot that competed with it in order to confuse voters. He campaigned against it. So, the biggest repudiation is 70% approval of Prop 36 against the governor's active campaigning.
Best campaign?
Pierluigi Oliverio, San Jose planning commissioner, Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association board member: Well, the most effective was the pro-SJUSD Measure R because they never mentioned how much the measure would cost. I guess that's what politics is—because when there's a bond measure, people won't always understand how it correlates to the taxes they pay, and especially how much more people pay in bond repayments than they do in taxes, say, to the City of San Jose. Notably, not a single San Jose City councilmember or the mayor endorsed Measure R.
Any unexpected alliances you noticed?
Pierluigi Oliverio, San Jose planning commissioner, Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association board member: We saw what we have known for a long time: during presidential elections, many people that typically do not vote, do show up and vote. These voters are sometimes called "low information voters" and they generally vote based on candidate profiles, party affiliation, gender, job title, and the like.
When were you most impressed by local media coverage (and Opp Now doesn't count)?
Roberta Moore, San Jose housing commissioner: I was most impressed with Devin Fehey’s (Anchor KPIX 5) coverage of Proposition 5. He interviewed people for and against the proposition. Devin highlighted issues that could be affected if it won or lost. Devin is the first reporter I met from the mainstream media who gives a balanced, unbiased perspective.
Lydia Kou, former Palo Alto mayor: I would say CalMatters. CalMatters appears to be conducting investigative journalism, which is quite helpful and eye-opening. As I have said over and over again, the state legislators cater to special interests and big donors; CalMatters’ reporting confirms it. It's a cabal there.
Biggest surprise?
Susan Shelley, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association VP of communications: I have to say I was a little bit surprised that Proposition 6 appears to be going down to defeat because there was no formal opposition to it, no campaign against it, and voters simply read the ballot label and rejected it.
Lydia Kou, former Palo Alto mayor: It is disturbing that this state government is so very much in the mega tech corporations' influence. These state elected officials are not working for Californians. I understand from some constituents that Meta supported Prop 5 and donated into a PAC to do this.
Then, PG&E has also donated to many campaigns and has gotten legislation passed on their behalf, such as AB1054, which was nicely titled as The California Wildfire Fund.
Sadly, Californians do not know what oversight or accountability needs to be conducted prior to giving these "safety" certificates. Were these "safety" certificates created to shield the shareholders from liability, and how easy is it to procure? Are PG&E ratepayers paying these higher rates to help shield PG&E's shareholders and also to ensure they keep getting their dividends?
I'm also dismayed and very disappointed with the California Democratic Party. This party has polarized our state; and sadly, I hold them responsible for the state of our nation as well. Mega corporations are running the country, and the state of California and are quite blatant about it, too. Look at Elon Musk, Reed Hoffman, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, etc., etc.
Tom Wolf, Recovery Education Coalition founder: Our governor and the rank and file Democrats in state legislature were almost all unanimously opposed to Prop 36, but it passed with a 70% vote. That's the true definition of “landslide.”
It's astonishing to me. They might have been deliberately myopic so they didn't break from ideology, but I'm surprised they missed out on that signal from California voters: that they want accountability back for habitual reoffenders, they want open drug use and homelessness to stop.
Also, I think it involves a certain degree of out-of-touchness. Our politicians spend a lot of time in their nice Sacramento offices, but aren't often on the streets in their communities. And when they are on the streets, they tend to solely attribute problems to the housing crisis, while ignoring that it's a multitude of crises, including lack of law enforcement and the drug addiction crisis. There are many factors that come together to make what we're seeing in SF and SJ.
Pierluigi Oliverio, San Jose planning commissioner, Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association board member: I thought Prop 5 would pass because people don't always make the connection between these propositions and their monetary impact on taxpayers. Congrats to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Ass'n for an efficient opposition that delivered their message without massive ad spends.
Gus Mattammal, Midcoast Community councilmember: The extent to which even the bluest counties in California shifted to the right. Even in my home county of San Mateo, which is one of the bluest counties in the country, there was a roughly 6-point swing. At the national level, a 6-point swing is a major wave.
Can the Republican party capitalize on that movement to the right and deliver some results that keep the trend going? Or will things just snap back?
Biggest loser?
Tobin Gilman, San Jose community leader, retired Silicon Valley technology industry executive: The SJ mayor and city council, which formally voted last summer to support Proposition 5 without any public outreach. Once again, the politicians and the bureaucrats on the city’s Intergovernmental Relations team were on the wrong side of history and thoroughly detached from the sentiments of their constituents. With roughly 126,000 votes still to be counted in Santa Clara County as I write this, Prop 5 is losing by approximately 10 points.
Tom Wolf, Recovery Education Coalition founder: In California, the biggest losers were harder-left progressives. They didn't get their way with ballot propositions: enacting rent control (Prop 33 lost), ending what they call “slavery” inside prisons (Prop 6 lost), and Prop 36 (which voters approved). I think this shocked them. They didn't see it coming.
At the local, state, and national level, Democrats were caught flat-footed this election. They were so sure that the message they'd been pumping out the last three or four years would resonate with voters, but it clearly didn't. Take San Francisco: the Board of Supervisors will remain a progressive majority, but they fired their mayor and elected a political outsider instead. This shows an appetite for change, and a swing back towards center-left, more moderate views on certain issues.
Tom Rubin, former SoCal Rapid Transit District CFO: MTC and the planners.
Jon Coupal, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association president: Zuckerberg for wasting $5 million supporting Prop 5.
Mark Burns, Bay Area real estate agent: The biggest losers were the MTC, which was pushing Proposition 5 hard so they could ram through future bad policy; Attorney General Rob Bonta, who went to court to ensure that voters would not be properly informed about what Proposition 5 would do; some wildly progressive District Attorneys in Pamela Price and George Gascon; and of course Governor Newsom, who sent his former chief of staff to go run against Kevin Kiley in the 3rd Congressional district (she lost) and who campaigned hard against Proposition 36, which passed overwhelmingly.
Biggest disappointment?
Mark Hinkle, Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association president, Libertarian Party of Santa Clara County vice chair: I was discouraged to see that Silicon Valley voted for the status quo: virtually all local incumbents won, and 24 of 26 local tax hike measures passed.
In stark contrast, voters in the vast majority of U.S. counties voted for tax cuts and smaller government as promised by President-elect Trump. Time will tell whether we’ll get that. History says, “No way.” Government always grows unless we the people mount a concerted effort to stop it.
Silicon Valley voters passed bond-debt measures that will make home ownership more expensive. That won’t help the homelessness crisis. And it will do nothing to improve children’s test scores or reverse our schools’ declining enrollment.
I encourage readers who share my concerns to take action in ways that suit you: give time or money to the campaigns or groups you favor, or enthusiastically share the benefits of smaller government with friends and family. The more you do so, the less chance we’ll experience in 2028 a repeat of 2024’s election game. We can change the game itself.
Jon Coupal, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association president: The passage of Proposition 2 and Proposition 4. Although not tax hikes, they did run up the state’s credit card unnecessarily.
Pat Waite, Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility president: I am appalled that California makes candidates suffer many additional days awaiting their final election results. Results ought to be available on Election Night, or at least the following day.
I get it: we want as many legitimate voters as possible to participate in our elections. We give them plenty of opportunities to do so. Mail-in ballots are sent to registered voters 29 days prior to elections. Workday early voting begins then, too. Weekend early voting is available the two weekends preceding Election Day. Given all of this, why don’t we require that all ballots be received by Election Day?
Susan Shelley, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association VP of communications: Measure A passing in Los Angeles County. It's going to raise the sales tax, which is very harsh on people; and it's going to entrench this current program of dealing with homelessness through these nonprofit organizations that are not fully accountable, right at a time when we're in the middle of an audit in the city of Los Angeles to see where the money went that went to these same groups.
Tom Rubin, former SoCal Rapid Transit District CFO: California Democratic Party continuing with “we need more taxes/fees” even after the election results—disappointing, but hardly surprising. They really don’t have any options if they are going to keep their bosses happy.
Mark Burns, Bay Area real estate agent: Biggest disappointment was Ash Kalra and Alex Lee getting back in [California Assembly] with such wide margins. I guess people just look for the word incumbent after a candidate’s name and say, “Well, he's been there before. He knows what he's doing. Let's do it.”
Biggest mistake?
Marc Joffe, Cato Institute federalism and state policy analyst: The Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) gave opponents a huge gift by making an error in the ballot language for Regional Measure 4. After BAHFA spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultants to craft a poll tested summary, Tom Rubin, founder of the opposition group, realized that they had made a simple error calculating the annual cost of the bond measure. This led to an embarrassing court challenge and, ultimately, cancellation of the $20 billion “affordable housing” bond measure.
Jon Coupal, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association president: Putting Prop 5 (ACA 10) on the ballot without realizing it targeted homeowners, a high propensity voting block.
Tom Rubin, former SoCal Rapid Transit District CFO: California Democratic Party in Sacramento with continuing with Prop 5. They lost big, but figured that they had to try it. After all that went on with the CA Supreme Court’s tossing out the Taxpayer Protection Act, a lot of voters appeared to remember.
MTC/BAHFA dividing $48.3 billion in taxes over 53 years and getting $670 million a year for RM4.
Worst policy idea in campaigning?
Steve Heimoff, Coalition for a Better Oakland president: Namely, Thao and Price blaming "outside MAGA billionaires" for their recalls. It was a direct insult to the Oakland/Alameda County residents. We know we're not "billionaires" or "MAGA," and we know we're not outsiders!
Biggest annoyance?
Mark Burns, Bay Area real estate agent: I don't look at Facebook very often, but they have that reels part on the Facebook where you can click on it—and the algorithm pays attention to whether you want to see somebody doing their best imitation of Eddie Van Halen, or you can watch Freddie Mercury at Wembley.
It’s like having an eight-track tape in your 1970 Firebird; and right in the middle of watching something like that, it would break, and there would be Gilbert Wong saying, “Hi, I'm Gilbert Wong, and I'm running for city council.”
And I'm like, “Get out of here. I want to watch the whole three minutes without being interrupted.”
What to watch going forward post-election?
Marc Joffe, Cato Institute federalism and state policy analyst: Trump’s victory has potential implications for California High-Speed Rail, the BART Silicon Valley extension, and other multi-billion-dollar rail projects. The Department of Transportation will now be led by Republicans who have a history of opposition to these projects and a strong motivation to cut domestic discretionary spending. Expect the absolute amount of federal transportation grants to be lower under Trump, with a smaller proportion of the money going to California projects.
Edward Ring, California Policy Center water and energy policy director: Californians are going to have to come to terms with the fact that the Federal government is about to aggressively deregulate and invest in ways designed, at last, to increase the state's availability and affordability of water and energy. A growing coalition of Californians including environmental and social justice advocates and moderate Democrats, along with virtually the entire GOP electorate numbering over 7 million voters, have realized that environmentalist overreach is the reason they struggle to manage their households and operate their businesses.
But against this sudden and much-needed help from Washington DC will be the Newsom- and Bonta-led Democratic party machine, which is making the entire basis of its political appeal revolve around demonizing President Trump and reflexively opposing everything his administration attempts, no matter how sensible. How this conflict is navigated will determine the direction of California politics. It is going to be a messy fight.
Mark Burns, Bay Area real estate agent: We have a $68 billion deficit for the state; and while everybody makes up a number, I think that we have something closer to a trillion dollars in unfunded liability for retirement and benefits, for government employees in the state, teachers, firefighters, police, all the government workers. Where are they going to come up with money for that? So I think the biggest thing to watch going forward is how frugal and careful voters are going to be.
Lydia Kou, former Palo Alto mayor: One more area to beware and to keep an eye on is "following the money.” The large think tanks such as the Terner Center Berkeley have professors writing papers that do not seem to comprehend the boots-on-the-ground issues and are actually compounding and contributing to the huge cost of living issues. Then there is the McKinsey Global Institute's report back in 2016, which named a housing number that was so bogus. But, they get to be the state legislators' go-to for informing their decisions—when other professors such as Prof. Michael Storper and Prof. Andres Rodriguez-Pose not only look at data but also geography to inform their research.
Ideology is good for talk and hypocrisy; it is a distraction and not reality, and definitely masks what they are actually doing ... wasteful spending.
Tom Rubin, former SoCal Rapid Transit District CFO: California Democratic Party will likely continue as if nothing had happened—we’ll see Son of RM4 and Return of Prop. 5, along with ACA 10 #2 to stop TPA #2.
Susan Shelley, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association VP of communications: New attacks coming on Proposition 13.
How can we move forward, post-election, amidst increased political polarization?
Roberta Moore, San Jose housing commissioner: Realize most of us want and care about the same thing. Most of us are moderate and agree on the issues: we want the government to spend our money wisely; take as little of it as possible; keep us safe; let us work and support our families (however that is defined for us); keep us free including being able to attempt to achieve our dreams and goals; provide a path to citizenship for immigrants; provide access to clean food, air, and water; lift people up to better circumstances when we can and take care of those who need it, when we can’t or when they can't fend for themselves.
To accomplish this, the following suggestions come to mind:
Stop letting the government and corporate-driven media manipulate and divide us.
Focus on the common goals, and ignore the ideology-based rhetoric used to support unachievable outcomes by those trying to divide us for their own gain.
Have a bipartisan dialogue to create solutions that have taken into account all the perspectives. (The City of SJ continues to only listen to the progressive agenda while ignoring the consequences shared by housing providers. As a result, the situation continues to get worse for renters.)
Don’t rely on those who benefit from swaying the outcome to their benefit. (Nonprofits and City staff who receive funding from the government drive the failed ideology-based rhetoric for housing and homeless.)
Realize there is value in bipartisanship and including all stakeholders. One party or group of stakeholders dominating over the others may not have the best outcomes. (The progressive agenda dominating California government has made California the worst state to live in, including: the highest crime rates, the most homeless, the highest rents, and the highest costs of living.)
Create accountability in government and the nonprofits they fund by requiring measurable results and tracking performance. (Government at all levels does not require results. California doesn’t even know how the $24 billion in funds for the homeless was spent or who received it.)
There is new leadership in San Jose’s Housing Department that seems to be focused on all six of these recommendations. Erik Solivan, San Jose’s new Director of Housing, is such a refreshing change. He and the team he is recruiting have an approach to preserving affordable housing, preventing homelessness, and housing the homeless that is responsible, comprehensive, and balanced.
What's been under-discussed this election?
Gus Mattammal, Midcoast Community councilmember: Education. The reality is, we have a two-tiered education system in this state: lower-income students get a dramatically different quality of education. And it's been that way for a long, long time. It's worth pointing out that eight years of a Democratic supermajority in the state legislature has made absolutely zero difference. But right now, sensible candidates for school board still have a really hard time fighting against the electoral machine that prevents any meaningful change from happening.
Any other observations?
Pierluigi Oliverio, San Jose planning commissioner, Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association board member: It sure looks like candidates stick to what the polling says is important to people, rather than having creative analysis and ideas about our current local situation. As a result, the differences revealed during the campaigns are on the margin.
That sameness may disappear after the election, when we will see single issue memos coming out from CM offices focusing on issues that aren't in the city's core competency, but are getting a lot of media attention. And many in the Council will think the city needs to take on duties that in reality are another governmental entity's job.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.