Understandably, former San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo would like us to think it is all but over in the general election race for the 16th Congressional District, and that his now-sole challenger Evan Low has little or no chance of upending the conventional wisdom.
Of course, conventional wisdom often is neither, and it is a long way to Nov. 5.
In a news release issued yesterday that is a rehash of the last several news releases (reuse and recycle also applies to information, apparently), Liccardo touts a newish poll showing him ahead of Low by 10 points among likely voters. The “commanding lead,” as it is described in the news release, grows to 12 points once these likely-ites are given “positive information” on the two candidates. The undecided drops from 29 points to 18 points.
Here is the thing about head-to-head polls (not just this one, but any poll about a November race): They tell voters little or nothing useful about what might happen in November.
Imagine a photo taken yesterday of a room full of people. All the photo tells you is where they were at that moment. It provides no insight on how they got there or where they might be going. A poll that shows a modest undecided speaks more to the question asked in the poll: If you had to vote today, who would you vote for? Of course, no one has to vote for nearly five months, which means that some larger percentage of poll respondents still regard themselves as undecided.
Liccardo’s commanding lead is not all that commanding. Liccardo’s primary win was only by a margin of 5 points. He got 21% of the vote, which means, to state the obvious, that 79% of voters who had a chance to vote for Liccardo chose someone else. Add in Low’s 16.6%, and more than 60% of the voters are up for grabs. They will be the object of a campaign that involves more than the “positive information” provided by the Liccardo pollsters. This is a campaign likely to be marked by bitter exchanges and some fascinating developments.
Recommended for you
Not the least of which will be the involvement on Liccardo’s behalf of former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who ponied up $500,000 in the primary for a super PAC supporting Liccardo. And, it turns out, Bloomberg was the mystery funder of the recount, as reported by Bay Area News Group, to the tune of $100,000.
This will be a very expensive race — as in millions of dollars — with money flowing into both campaigns, as well as independent spending. This is going to be a bumpy ride.
HYPER LOCAL: There is a new entrant in the San Mateo City Council District 2 race. Charles Hansen has filed the appropriate paperwork to run against Democratic activist and legislative aide Nicole Fernandez. Hansen is a chief programs officer for Peninsula Family Service, a San Mateo-based community services nonprofit. He is said to have moved into the district only recently. He did not respond to a phone message inquiry. Speaking of which, Councilmember Amourence Lee, against whom Hansen and Fernandez would be running, is said to have held a fundraising event at which she made it clear she is running. As was the case last week, she did not respond this week to a request to talk about her candidacy. … In San Mateo District 4, community activist Danielle Cwirko-Godycki kicked off her campaign with an event last week. She has a long list of endorsements, including Rich Hedges, who currently represents this district, and says she has raised nearly $40,000 so far. She called the district the “infrastructure powerhouse” of the city. In endorsement statement, former state Sen. Jerry Hill said, “This is the most important council election in over 30 years. … I have never seen the city at such a critical political crossroads. The very future of civility, integrity, honesty, transparency and good, realistic, pragmatic thinking in our government is on the line today.” My heavens. … Last week’s item about would-be candidates for Redwood City Council included real estate broker Michael Verdone. He is not running.
INDEPENDENT-ISH: A hefty 78 people have applied to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors for the seven openings on the Independent Civilian Advisory Commission on the Sheriff’s Office. Of the seven members, the five supervisors each get one nominee, the sheriff gets one and county staff gets one. Supervisor Warren Slocum said he and colleague Dave Pine will announce the members on June 11. The commission may be independent in name, but the board chose to retain all the actual oversight authority.
Mark Simon is a veteran journalist, whose career included 15 years as an executive at SamTrans and Caltrain. He can be reached at marksimon@smdailyjournal.com.

(3) comments
Mr. Simon, thanks for another informative column. Seems most politics around here ends up, when only Dems run, of becoming a choice of the lesser of two (or all) evils, as they say. As for the Sheriff’s advisory commission, I’m surprised the number is only 78. I’d figure more folks would want to get their hands on the $3.5 million slush fund which pays out $500/day per member per meeting. (At least these were the numbers around 6 months ago.) A waste of taxpayer money which also perversely incentivizes folks in the commission to make a mountain out of every molehill and to meet as many times as possible to shoot the breeze while not making any decisions or conclusions. After all, more money in their pockets by keeping that $500/day per meeting rolling as long as possible. Perhaps we need an advisory commission (who’s incentivized to reduce the number of advisory commission meetings) for the advisory commission.
There is no stipend for the commission members, it is entirely volunteer. And as Mark says, it is advisory only, it does not have oversight authority. See its website at https://www.smcgov.org/ceo/independent-civilian-advisory-commission-sheriffs-office
NancyG, thanks for your response, but your link doesn’t address fiscal impacts. Below are two links related to the commission and as you can see from the first link, there is a fiscal impact. The second link reports the estimated $3.5 million price tag, along with the $500/individual/meeting price tag. If you have newer information, I’m sure many of us would like to see how much more of our taxpayer money will be wasted for an advisory committee potentially made up of folks who have no experience with law enforcement. Again, there’s a perverse incentive to make mountains out of every molehill and to meet as often as possible…
https://www.coastsidebuzz.com/san-mateo-county-supervisors-establish-an-independent-civilian-advisory-commission-to-work-with-the-sheriff/
https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/11/02/san-mateo-county-board-of-supervisors-agrees-that-sheriffs-office-needs-some-type-of-oversight/
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.