In July, we convened Manhattan Institute focus groups in Los Angeles and San Francisco to understand how Californians are thinking about their cities and state ahead of consequential elections this November. Last week, we examined Los Angeles, where voters expressed deep dissatisfaction with local conditions but showed little appetite for a broader political realignment. Our second installment turns to San Francisco, where participants saw visible progress and appeared more open to the reform-oriented politics producing it.
For years, San Francisco has served as national shorthand for progressive urban failure. Images of open-air drug markets, organized retail theft, homeless encampments, and empty downtown storefronts made the city a symbol of civic decline. Even many San Franciscans came to describe their home as trapped in a post-pandemic “doom loop.”
Finally, a reason to check your email.
Sign up for our free newsletter today.
The voters we spoke with acknowledged that recent history. They described robberies, car break-ins, public drug use, severe mental illness, unaffordable housing, and a government that often spent enormous sums without producing visible results. Several had been victims of crime. One participant had been robbed at gunpoint and later bitten by a stranger. Another said that her mother had been held up at gunpoint. A third had been spit on, pushed off a bus, and nearly robbed during three separate encounters on public transportation.
Yet their account of San Francisco was considerably more hopeful than the portrait that emerged from our Los Angeles focus groups. Angelenos recognize that their city is failing but remain reluctant to reconsider the progressive governing model behind those failures. Many have responded to disorder and dysfunction by looking further leftward politically. San Franciscans, by contrast, increasingly believe that their city has begun to correct course.
Our San Francisco focus groups brought together 19 voters in two sessions: one with ten registered Democrats and another with nine voters registered with no party preference. Participants represented a range of ages, races, occupations, and backgrounds. As in Los Angeles, party registration does not map neatly onto the relevant political coalition in California’s Top Two system. Most of the no-party-preference voters participate in the same overwhelmingly Democratic electorate that determines the city’s direction.
The problems they identified were familiar: housing costs, homelessness, addiction, crime, and government incompetence. The difference was their sense of trajectory. Participants who had lived through San Francisco’s worst pandemic years described cleaner streets today, a busier downtown, returning companies, and a city that felt more serious about restoring order. Their optimism was cautious but real.
The optimism was hardly universal, though. A few participants still believed the city was moving in the wrong direction, and nearly everyone identified serious problems that remain unresolved. Affordability was especially daunting. One civil-service employee said that rising housing, grocery, gas, and commuting costs had made it difficult to remain in a lower-paying job that he enjoyed. Others worried that the AI boom could intensify housing pressures or displace the white-collar workers who had helped power the city’s economy.
Much of the credit for improvement went to Mayor Daniel Lurie. Participants across the ideological spectrum praised his competence, civic boosterism, and willingness to focus on basic governance. They also credited the city’s more moderate Board of Supervisors and recent housing reforms. One participant who had watched San Francisco descend into what he called an “abyss” said that he now visited downtown more often. Another said he had noticed “dramatic changes.” Even skeptics generally agreed that the city was moving upward because of Lurie’s leadership.
That improvement has widened the range of policies San Franciscans are prepared to support. Participants endorsed stronger enforcement against theft, stricter consequences for repeat offenders, more aggressive action against public disorder, streamlined housing construction, and greater scrutiny of government spending and nonprofit contractors. Eight of the nine no-party-preference voters supported mandatory treatment for people whose addiction or mental illness made them a danger to themselves or others. Seven said California’s income taxes were too high, and six wanted the state to focus more on cutting taxes.
Participants’ assessments of California also revealed the limits of the shift. Many gave the state high grades because they considered it more humane and functional than Florida, Arizona, or other conservative states. Their loyalty to the broader progressive project remained intact. Yet even several of those voters complained that California was too expensive, poorly managed, or tolerant of disorder. The emerging consensus was reformist rather than partisan.
San Francisco remains a deeply liberal city. Some still want a leader in the mold of New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, and few expressed any affection for the Republican Party. But their discussion of local government was notably less ideological than the one we heard in Los Angeles. They cared about whether streets were safe, housing was built, laws were enforced, money was accounted for, and officials delivered visible results.
This is the encouraging lesson of San Francisco’s recovery. A city does not have to change parties before it can change direction. After years of progressive overreach, voters can reward leaders who emphasize competence, abundance, public order, and accountable government. San Francisco’s problems remain formidable, and its progress could still stall. For the first time in years, however, many of its residents believe that decline is no longer inevitable.
Below is a partial transcript of our conversation, selected for insight and lightly edited for clarity and length.
Participants
Democrats
James, 55, white, retiree; in San Francisco just over a year; very left-leaning; Kamala Harris voter; backed Xavier Becerra for governor
Alan, 34, Asian, project manager; in San Francisco nearly eight years; somewhat left-leaning; Harris voter; backed Tom Steyer for governor
Lori, 50, Hispanic, sustainability educator; in San Francisco 16 years; very left-leaning; Harris voter; backed Steyer
Sylvia, 76, black, retired courtroom deputy; San Francisco native; moderate; Harris voter; backed Katie Porter for governor
Kevin, 27, multiracial, accountant; in San Francisco three years; somewhat left-leaning; Harris voter; backed Steyer
Christopher, 37, Hispanic, technical writer; in San Francisco about two years; somewhat left-leaning; Jill Stein voter; backed Steyer
Marie, 44, Asian, sales representative; in San Francisco more than eight years; moderate; Harris voter; backed Becerra
Kristen, 43, Asian, data analyst; in San Francisco 14 years; somewhat left-leaning; Harris voter; backed Steyer
Nathanael, 62, white, civil-service employee; in San Francisco 14 years; moderate; Harris voter; backed Matt Mahan for governor
Saam, 51, white, tech worker; in San Francisco since 2001; somewhat left-leaning; Harris voter; backed Becerra
Independents (no party preference)
Oleg, 70, white, retiree; in San Francisco 25 years; somewhat right-leaning; Donald Trump voter; backed Steve Hilton for governor
Shacoria, 33, black, school psychologist; in San Francisco one year; somewhat left-leaning; did not vote for president in 2024; backed Steyer
Epee, 76, Asian, retiree; in San Francisco since the 1980s; moderate; Harris voter; backed Mahan
Phil, 60, white, business-development manager; in San Francisco more than 25 years; somewhat right-leaning; Stein voter; backed Steyer
Jennifer, 52, Asian, behavior technician; in San Francisco more than 20 years; moderate; did not vote for president in 2024; backed Hilton
Katie, 24, white, risk consultant; San Francisco native; moderate; Harris voter; did not vote in the 2026 California primaries
Steve, 37, Hispanic, marketing and special-events professional; in San Francisco about three years; very left-leaning; Harris voter; backed Steyer
Alex, 34, white, tech-strategy and operations professional; in San Francisco about two and a half years; moderate; Trump voter; backed Mahan
Sean, 40, white, self-employed tech worker; in San Francisco 17 years; somewhat left-leaning; Harris voter; backed Becerra
MODERATOR: How did you feel about the recent California primary elections?
ALAN: Pretty good.
LORI: Disappointed, as usual.
JAMES: Satisfied.
KRISTEN: Disappointed.
MARIE: Indifferent.
KEVIN: Lukewarm.
STEVE: Disappointed. It felt like another election where I had to hold my nose and vote.
KATIE: With a few exceptions, many candidates lacked the experience necessary for the offices they were seeking.
JENNIFER: Voting has felt daunting. I haven’t been excited about a presidential candidate since Ron Paul. I came close to voting for Trump, but I didn’t want to vote for either major-party candidate and considered Jill Stein instead.
SHACORIA: I felt okay but overwhelmed by the number of political ads for so many different offices.
PHIL: I feel like I’m always voting against politicians who want to climb the ladder. They’re not here to solve problems. They’re here to make a name for themselves and move on.
MODERATOR: What was the top issue on your mind when you voted?
NATHANAEL: Prices. The cost of living.
LORI: Health care and state-sponsored violence.
ALAN: Housing and transit.
SAAM: Housing and government.
JAMES: Health care and taxing the rich.
KATIE: Cutting income taxes, along with environmental policy.
EPEE: Homelessness and violence. I first came to San Francisco in 1983, when it was a beautiful city. After the pandemic, I wanted a candidate who could address what had happened on the streets, especially downtown.
PHIL: Homelessness and enforcing the law. If I don’t curb my wheels, I get a parking ticket, while people doing drugs and committing violence seem to get off scot-free.
SEAN: Pragmatism. Local politics is mostly about getting into the weeds and solving problems in neighborhoods.
ALEX: Fiscal solvency, on both the tax and spending sides. Housing, construction, and safety.
OLEG: Safety. I want my grandkids to be able to walk anywhere in the city at 9:00 p.m. and be safe.
SHACORIA: Affordability. A lot of things matter, but the cost of living is at the top of the list.
MODERATOR: How would you grade the government of California?
SAAM: A-.
ALAN: B+ or A-.
LORI: B-.
CHRISTOPHER: B+.
KRISTEN: B-.
SYLVIA: B-.
JAMES: An easy A. I was born in California, lived in Arizona for 33 years, and eventually came back. Arizona is nowhere close to California.
MARIE: B-.
KEVIN: B. California has enough diversity of people and thought, and enough money to take care of people, even if it does not always do a good job. Compared with states that lack those resources, California can be half as effective with twice as much money and still do decently.
NATHANAEL: B.
PHIL: F+—just to put something positive in there. We have every industry and are the richest state in the country, but our schools and roads are terrible. We’re very poorly run.
STEVE: B+, compared with Florida. It’s much easier to access benefits such as Medi-Cal and CalFresh here. Compared with the South, California is about as good as it gets in this country.
EPEE: B. Things aren’t very good in California or San Francisco, but cities in other states are dealing with many of the same problems.
KATIE: C+. California isn’t doing well, but it hasn’t completely lost the plot either. Compared with some things happening in the South, that’s worth something.
JENNIFER: D. I almost gave it an F because of the lockdowns, the businesses that closed, and the people who never recovered.
SEAN: C+. It’s easy to succumb to negativity, but California does a lot well, even if it could operate more efficiently.
SHACORIA: B-. I’m from Florida, and there is more effort here than in many places. But California is still too expensive, and there are still major failures.
OLEG: D. We’re the richest state, but we still have huge problems with homelessness and crime. If someone breaks the law, there should be consequences.
ALEX: D. Overregulated, overspent, and poorly managed. I won’t say under-managed, because I don’t think more managing would help.
MODERATOR: How well is San Francisco taking care of the people who live there?
SAAM: I appreciated both London Breed and Daniel Lurie. I voted for Breed first and Lurie second under ranked choice. I think Lurie’s doing a great job. Housing is my Number One issue, and both are very pro-housing. Breed also did a lot to navigate the city through Covid and address homelessness.
SYLVIA: I think it’s getting worse. I grew up in South of Market, and we used to walk home at night. Nowadays, people are on drugs and they’ll kill you.
LORI: We’re going in the wrong direction.
KRISTEN: I wasn’t a big fan of London Breed. I thought the grift was real. It’s nice to see Lurie take an interest in making the city better, bringing people back, and improving it. I think we’re moving in the right direction.
ALAN: Overall, San Francisco is going in a better direction. I moved here in 2018 and stayed through Covid. I was robbed at gunpoint, bitten by a stranger, and robbed again inside a coffee shop at two in the afternoon. I also heard more anti-Asian and anti-gay slurs on public transit than I ever did living in Illinois. It felt completely out of control. The city’s image and quality of life have improved substantially. Housing, transit, and government spending remain problems, and we spend a lot on care without spending it effectively. But I think the people working in the city now have a vision for the greater good.
ALEX: There’s still a lot of over-permissiveness. When district attorneys refuse to prosecute conduct that would be prosecuted in any other respectable city, it gets frustrating.
SEAN: Things were tighter before 2020. Then the mayor and supervisors became more permissive, the laws got laxer, and enforcement declined.
STEVE: San Francisco has tech CEOs and software engineers making hundreds of thousands of dollars, and then people say, “Someone stole a Snickers from Walgreens; throw them in jail.” That ignores the city’s structural inequality. I look for candidates trying to level the playing field.
[Asked to Independents] MODERATOR: Is San Francisco moving in the right direction or the wrong direction?
KATIE: The city has been trending in a good direction over the past year. Major companies are coming back, and people are moving back. I think Daniel Lurie has been a great mayor, especially for younger people.
PHIL: Trending up. I like Lurie and have noticed dramatic changes. Housing is still going to be an issue.
ALEX: Lurie and the more moderate supervisors have done good things on zoning. Combined with state laws that prevent projects from being held up indefinitely, that’s been great.
EPEE: San Francisco was in an abyss during the pandemic, so I can’t see anywhere to go but up. Slowly, I can see it. I go downtown more often than I did a year ago. I want to see the boarded-up stores come back to life.
SHACORIA: Things are improving, but housing and AI remain concerns. AI could bring jobs and income, or it could displace workers and deepen the city’s problems.
SEAN: We’re generally moving in the right direction, and AI is bringing money into the city. But it’s also aggravating housing and affordability problems, and we need to think ahead about the white-collar jobs it may displace.
OLEG: The direction is good now, though I’m skeptical about the future. If California doesn’t solve homelessness and drugs, the progress will eventually stop. We’re going up because of Lurie, but the system should keep improving regardless of who the mayor is.
MODERATOR: How would you characterize crime in San Francisco?
JENNIFER: I never thought I’d see the day when people could commit blatant theft and get away with it. Growing up, I never saw anything like this. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve seen people take as much as they can carry and walk out while security guards do nothing.
MARIE: You see stores close and wonder whether there is even a Walgreens or CVS on every block anymore. Other cities are opening stores and restaurants, while the Financial District and Union Square feel like ghost towns. San Francisco is still a straggler in recovering from Covid.
LORI: Corporations can afford some theft. That isn’t what caused all the stores to close.
SYLVIA: Crime is not only a San Francisco problem. It’s everywhere.
KATIE: Crime has gotten totally out of control in recent years, especially after Covid. Seeing everything locked up does not give a great impression of San Francisco.
MODERATOR: Has anyone here been a victim of crime?
OLEG: Of course. There have been car break-ins, and someone broke into my mother’s apartment.
KATIE: My mother was robbed at gunpoint. Our neighbor’s house was broken into twice in two nights.
ALEX: My friend was hit with a brick leaving a bar and had to get new teeth.
JENNIFER: About three times in three years on the bus. I’ve been spit on, pushed off the bus, and targeted by a homeless man who tried to take my backpack because I was sitting near the exit. I held on tightly, but he still tried.
ALAN: After I was robbed, people said, “Well, you live in Lower Haight,” as if that justified it.
MODERATOR: California voters increased penalties for certain theft and drug offenses in 2024. Should the state pursue more policies like that?
LORI: It’s another war on drugs. It doesn’t address the poverty and inequality that contribute to crime.
SYLVIA: It’s still stealing.
KATIE: It’s part of fixing the problem, but it doesn’t matter if people aren’t prosecuted.
OLEG: People must be responsible for what they do. Maybe a small offense gets a fine, but repeat theft should mean jail.
SEAN: I favor enforcement that also addresses the economic and mental-health problems leading people to commit crime.
SHACORIA: I work in mental health and favor a balanced approach. I’d rather see treatment and facilities than just jail. But San Francisco needs better enforcement and stricter laws. I’m not a tough-on-crime person, but the city feels uniquely permissive—weirdly lax.
EPEE: We are too liberal here. Images of people attacking Louis Vuitton and other stores are terrible and drive away tourists. The city needs more discipline.
MODERATOR: What is causing homelessness in San Francisco?
SYLVIA: There’s nowhere affordable for people to live. They’re building apartments, but not low-income apartments.
KATIE: The city is picking at homelessness instead of solving it. You cannot simply move people off the streets or solve everything by building housing. Drugs are driving the mental-health problems, and unless you address that root cause, you are not solving anything. The Tenderloin has spread toward the Financial District, and companies see that and decide not to invest.
PHIL: It’s more complex than mental illness and drugs. Some people are struggling with addiction or mental health. Others became homeless after a divorce or medical crisis and could recover with the right support. Then there is a group choosing the lifestyle and taking advantage of free housing, hotel vouchers, food, and the nonprofits with money gushing through them.
JAMES: It’s both housing and mental illness, but mental illness is probably the larger part—maybe 60–40.
CHRISTOPHER: Housing is extremely expensive, but drug use and mental illness are the most significant problems. Since I arrived two years ago, the city has looked cleaner and the situation seems to be improving, though sometimes it feels as if people are simply being moved around.
NATHANAEL: I can’t afford my housing anymore. The economy hasn’t kept up with the cost of living. Groceries, gas, and commuting costs keep rising, but salaries don’t. I used to have a higher-paying job and could afford the city. I took a lower-paying job that I enjoy, and now I struggle to pay my bills.
EPEE: Much of the mental illness we see is rooted in substance abuse. We need to cut off the supply and punish the people responsible.
[Asked to Independents] MODERATOR: Would you support mandatory treatment for people whose addiction or mental illness made them a danger to themselves or others?
[Eight of nine hands are raised.]
PHIL: We can’t send everyone into institutions willy-nilly, but there are circumstances we can all agree on. I see people defecating in the street with no idea what’s happening. How did we let this happen? We’ve got to do something.
STEVE: My concern is ensuring compassionate, properly funded long-term care. If facilities are poorly managed, they can become as bad as jail.
MODERATOR: Is fraud or corruption a problem in San Francisco or California?
SAAM: London Breed had some really shady things going on. It made me anxious.
KRISTEN: There was some really shady stuff.
KEVIN: San Francisco government feels very institutionalized and can become a boys’ club. I’m not saying corruption is widespread, but it’s easy when major donors, politicians, families, money, and social circles are so closely connected.
KATIE: It may not be as bad as in some states, but that’s not a great standard. London Breed used her position to help her brother, and some district attorneys aren’t doing what they’re supposed to do.
STEVE: I don’t know enough to say exactly how corruption works, but I wonder where the money goes. PG&E has become extraordinarily expensive despite being regulated. Is that corruption, or loopholes?
ALEX: California seems to have a particular problem with the nonprofit industrial complex, though that’s based more on anecdotes I’ve read than data.
PHIL: Locally, nonprofits provide a back door. The money goes in, and who knows where it goes? At the state level, we aren’t very good at running our own business.
MODERATOR: In November, Californians will vote on a one-time wealth tax of roughly 5 percent on the worldwide assets of billionaires. How do you plan to vote?
SYLVIA: We don’t have to worry. We aren’t rich.
ALAN: I’m undecided. I don’t fully buy the argument that wealthy people will flee, but I think this should be addressed federally. People like Elon Musk benefit from California without necessarily paying taxes here.
SAAM: I’m opposed. A one-time tax makes another one-time tax easier. It feels threatening to tell people they can never anticipate the tax rate because the state might suddenly grab a large share of their assets. Billionaires have many ways to avoid taxes, but that problem should be addressed federally so people do not simply leave the state.
CHRISTOPHER: I’ll vote for it, and I’d support it again. People said the wealthy would leave New York after Mamdani was elected, and they didn’t. New York remains one of the greatest cities, and people will stay here, too. If California lost Elon Musk, oh well.
NATHANAEL: Why does anyone need that much wealth? What are you doing with billions of dollars if you can’t help your fellow man?
JENNIFER: I need to do more research. I heard that taxing the rich may not help because they can leave, raise prices, or lower wages.
KATIE: I want to know where the money would go. California already has high taxes, and I don’t know that sending most of the money to health programs is the best use. It might be better spent elsewhere.
ALEX: I’m violently opposed. The rich would leave, making the tax ineffective even on its own terms. We already spend too much and need to fix the spending side before raising more revenue. And the state would be seizing assets people already own, not taxing new income.
SHACORIA: I generally support it, but wealthy people may find a way around it. I’d need to look into the details.
[Asked to Independents] MODERATOR: Is California income tax too high?
[Seven of nine hands are raised. An eighth makes a so-so gesture.]
[Asked to Independents] MODERATOR: Should California focus more on cutting taxes?
[Six of nine hands are raised.]
PHIL: I’d rephrase that as budgeting. I’d happily pay these taxes if the roads were good and the schools were better. The education system is atrocious.
SEAN: I want a simpler tax code and more transparency and accountability in how money is spent. People complain about taxes, then complain that the DMV is slow or services aren’t available.
MODERATOR: How would you grade Gavin Newsom?
NATHANAEL: B.
LORI: D.
ALAN: B or B-.
KEVIN: C.
MARIE: B.
JAMES: A.
SYLVIA: B.
KRISTEN: C.
CHRISTOPHER: He seems slimy. I guess he’s doing fine, but I don’t like him. Maybe a B.
SEAN: Schmoozy.
JENNIFER: A typical puppet.
KATIE: He’s been comfortable in California for too long.
EPEE: So-so.
STEVE: His hair is too slick.
ALEX: Untrustworthy.
SHACORIA: All right.
MODERATOR: What kind of person should lead San Francisco or California?
PHIL: Someone fiscally responsible who isn’t a career politician but has enough political experience to be effective and understands the state’s strengths and weaknesses.
OLEG: Daniel Lurie would be a great governor.
EPEE: I want someone who knows California, its people, and how things work here—a forward thinker who can apply modern ideas while understanding the past. I don’t mind billionaires if the system also supports the middle class.
SEAN: Hypothetically, I would want someone like the CEO of a major company—a person who knows how to run a successful organization but also cares about the common good.
CHRISTOPHER: I like Mamdani. He’s moral, fun, and feels like a man of the people. I’d like someone like that here, though I don’t think it would happen because too much money is lined up against it.
LORI: The same people who helped oust Chesa Boudin will do whatever they can to stop a Mamdani-style candidate. They have the money and power.
SAAM: Mamdani may not be the best comparison. He ran in a unique New York race and is unusually charismatic. New York mayors usually become less popular after taking office, and he has done the opposite.
CHRISTOPHER: I also like Lurie. He seems to be a genuine proponent of San Francisco and enjoys cheering it on. I like that about him.
KRISTEN: I want someone who follows the same rules they create. That’s what bothered me about Gavin Newsom dining in restaurants while everyone else was stuck at home.
MARIE: Someone young, progressive, charismatic, and genuinely concerned about people.
KEVIN: I don’t want leaders who are out of touch. Career politicians become so removed from daily life that they become part of the institution. Lurie has done a decent job, but even his nonprofit background leaves him somewhat removed from the average voter. That’s part of why Mamdani is so popular in New York: he seems more in touch with ordinary people.
[Asked to Independents] MODERATOR: Does San Francisco need to become more progressive, more conservative, or more moderate?
ALEX: Moderate, if possible.
OLEG: Moderate.
SHACORIA: More progressive.
KATIE: More moderate. I don’t think the country can handle another extremist president.
OLEG: No socialists or Communists. I grew up under Communism in the Soviet Union.
SEAN: People conflate socialism and Communism. Many policies promoting the social good don’t involve government seizing the means of production. More liberal social policies could still have value.
MODERATOR: What is the one change you would most like to make in California?
STEVE: A more affordable cost of living.
KATIE: A detailed breakdown of government spending.
JENNIFER: Homelessness and affordable housing.
SEAN: More civic participation through civil-society institutions.
SHACORIA: Make the city more affordable and provide more resources.
OLEG: Solve the drug problem.
PHIL: A compassionate, functional solution to homelessness.