Hi there,

A few thoughts about Election Day. 

First, I wanted to thank you, again, for your support. As I wrote in the days before the election, regardless of outcome, this campaign was first and foremost about grassroots power, not about politics as usual. Our mission is to continue fighting for change, as a grassroots movement, regardless of the election’s outcome, and you’ll hear more about that very shortly. 

Second, the early results, with perhaps 40-50% of the vote counted, are not good for us. The current numbers show Jesse with a 64-23 lead, and while we are very likely to get many of the votes that went to the other progressive candidates  (another 11 percent, which in theory could bring our vote total head to head to 64-34), due to Ranked Choice Voting, we won’t even be able to get to that point unless Jesse’s numbers amount to less than 50% of the eventual total. The silver lining is that progressive voters tend to vote later. (In Pennsylvania, Biden is expected to get 78% of the late vote.) And we are seeing progressive vote totals fall short of what I expected in multiple races, including incumbent city council member Cheryl Davila, who has 28% of the vote in District 2, and progressive challenger Richard Illgen, who has 25% in a two person race for District 6. It is possible that we are going to see a surge of progressive votes as we count the remaining ballots. Indeed, we have seen the numbers tighten with the first two small updates, from 66-22 to 64-23. But they are not tightening fast enough to push this into the (simulated) second round of voting. So the better hypothesis is that the Berkeley public voted against the progressive candidates in this election.

This was surprising to me because our internal numbers were good. We started this campaign with a shocking 20:1 ratio of supports to opposes. Even in the worst stages of our campaign, we were getting a 3:2 ratio of people expressing support over opposing us, and in the last few weeks the ratio ranged from 3:1 to 2:1. But two things likely happened. First, we only reached about 18,000 of the 78,000 registered voters, and the voters we didn’t reach probably broke very strongly in Jesse’s direction. Second, the undecided voters probably voted against us, along with voters who refused to talk to us at all. This was partly caused, no doubt, by the intensely negative campaign run by our opponent, which created fear and confusion among voters. 

Third, we’ll have many opportunities to learn from this experience -- and push harder and more effectively for change. The first two lessons to me are clear. First, progressives need to unify. Cheryl Davila, Richard Illgen, and I did not coordinate nearly as much as Jesse and Sophie -- who actively campaigned together. And the other primary progressive candidate for mayor spent most of their campaign attacking us rather than working together to create change. I hope to sit down with Cheryl, Richard, and others immediately after this campaign to try to address these problems, and ensure there’s a more unified progressive coalition for future efforts. Second, we needed more institutional ties and endorsements. While we’ve done lots of grassroots work, the formal organizations in Berkeley, not just big corporations but civic organizations, still carry much weight. And our lack of relationships in these organizations was a problem. Even nominally progressive organizations, due to lack of familiarity with our campaign, and the intensity of the attacks against us, did not mobilize on our behalf. We will need to sit down and talk to them, along with folks like Cheryl and Richard, to create the trust and relationships necessary to more effectively fight for political change. 

There is a lot more to learn, but I also want to highlight some victories. 

• We pushed policy in a dramatically progressive direction. The incumbent mayor has now set a 2030 timeline for carbon neutrality and conceded that banning RVs in Berkeley was a mistake. 

• We built perhaps the largest volunteer army in Berkeley history, with over 100 individuals engaging in canvassing efforts and over 200 involved in our campaign in some way. We did not use professional campaign consultants at all. 

• We did not pay any traditional campaign consultants, or take any of the traditional big money donations, yet we ended up raising and spending significantly more than the incumbent mayor. (The final numbers will probably be something like $130,000 to $80,000, and that includes a $15,000 donation Jesse made to his own campaign.) 

• We brought to the forefront issues that had been ignored by the City, such as the killing of Kayla Moore, the racist code enforcement process that displaced Leonard Powell, or the brutal mistreatment of our unhoused neighbors. 

• We developed strong relationships with key allies in Berkeley, such as former Mayor Gus Newport and Rent Board member Mari Mendonca. 

• We proved that animal rights could be a force in mainstream progressive politics. Despite the attacks and caricatures, thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of Berkeley voters will say, by the end of this election, that an unabashed animal rights activist was their first choice for Mayor, against an establishment candidate who had every major endorsement within the Democratic Party. 

• We learned an enormous amount about key issues, such as homelessness and climate change, and will be able to use that knowledge to push harder for future change. 

• We had a s___ ton of fun with an amazing set of people. 

I could say more. But I’ll just end with this key point. The election was not an engine. It was a thermometer. What this proves is that, right now, Berkeley is probably not quite ready for change. The forces of inertia that have prevented progress – fear, disinformation, and unfamiliarity with genuinely progressive ideas – have proven more stubborn than we had hoped. But failure is the first step to success. Now that we know what our obstacles are (division among progressives, lack of institutional ties), we can work on overcoming them.

I already have some big plans for that. We will form a new, grassroots, and unifying progressive coalition that borrows from some of the tools I’ve learned as an animal rights and environmental activist (radical inclusivity, nonviolent direct action). I’m starting the work on that today at San Pablo Park at 12 pm, and you are welcome to join! 

We need a better communications infrastructure to reach people in local communities, so they can see through the social media/corporate disinformation and noise. My podcast, The Green Pill, is a first step. We are bringing the fight against social media toxicity to the next level and will find new ways to create genuine community and solidarity, to inspire people to fight for change.

But most importantly, we must create resilience in our own communities. Responding to failure is part of that. There will be more failures in the years to come, as our climate worsens, corporate power increases, and ordinary people are left behind. We will need movements – and individual people – who can see the cold hard truth of these failures while also finding ways to keep fighting, and get back on our feet stronger than before. 

We all feel disappointment about this election. The failure of the progressive vote. The disinformation and negativity. The corporate power that came rushing in to maintain its power. And, perhaps, as things wind down, the final electoral results. But if we are resilient and adaptive – if we learn from these disappointments and be stronger in our next effort – we will see these failures as a crucial step to success.

Every success I’ve had in my life has come from this kind of resilience. And I’m confident that we have it in ourselves – that you have it within yourself – to transform failure into success.

Thanks for everything.

Wayne