San Francisco’s Voters are Screwed

California’s 11th Congressional District, encompassing San Francisco has long been a safe Democratic stronghold held by outgoing Nancy Pelosi, voters here face a terrible choice this cycle. Primaries are June 2, 2026.

The three leading candidates – Saikat Chakrabarti, Connie Chan, and Scott Wiener – are card-carrying leftist Democrats, offering precious little ideological diversity in a city already drowning in progressive experiments that have turned once-vibrant neighborhoods into open-air asylums of crime, tents, needles, human waste, and unchecked decay.

These candidates represent not a genuine contest of ideas but a tawdry competition over who can accelerate the city’s decline fastest while virtue-signaling the loudest about equity, climate, and foreign grievances. And all vilify Trump as a rally cry.

San Francisco voters, long addicted to unchallenged one-party rule (Democrat activists), find themselves in a particularly bad place: varying shades of left-wing governance that prioritize ideology, identity politics, and imported obsessions over basic public safety, fiscal sanity, and everyday results. With streets unsafe for families, businesses fleeing in droves, addiction rampant, and basic services collapsing, the options boil down to far-left ideologues and one who can’t even be called a “moderate” Democrat without stretching the term into pure fantasy.

Let’s look at these three candidates:

Saikat Chakrabarti stands out as one of the most overtly far-left wing liberals in the pack – and his fixation on Israel and Zionism only underscores how dangerously detached all these candidates are from the pressing crises right outside their doors here in San Francisco. A former chief of staff to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Chakrabarti helped architect the Green New Deal, that sprawling socialist wish list of government control over energy, housing, transportation, and the broader economy, all dressed up as urgent environmentalism. His background as a tech entrepreneur, complete with millions of his own fortune funneled into the campaign, might fool some gullible observers into thinking he’s a pragmatic businessman at heart.

But his record screams the opposite. Chakrabarti has been obsessed with Israel and Zionism, working his strident opposition into nearly every interview, forum, and public appearance. He routinely labels Israel’s defensive actions in Gaza as “genocide” – a legal term he invokes with chilling ease – supports the Block the Bombs Act to halt all military aid to Israel (including defensive systems like Iron Dome), and has called for sanctions on Israeli leaders while insisting there is no meaningful distinction between offensive and defensive weapons. He pledges to reject any foreign lobby money, particularly from pro-Israel groups, and frames any U.S. support for the Jewish state as complicity in ethnic cleansing. In a city that still maintains a notable Jewish community, this laser-like focus raises serious eyebrows: Is he covertly an antisemite? The pattern aligns with Squad-style rhetoric suggests something deeper and more troubling than mere policy disagreement. It reeks of the selective moral outrage that often masks old prejudices repackaged in fashionable progressive clothing.

Chakrabarti and his two rivals completely ignore the ongoing plague of illegal alien drug dealers flooding San Francisco streets with deadly fentanyl, killing addicts at a horrifying rate of roughly 1-3 per day through the overdose epidemic. With hundreds of deaths annually – over 600 in 2025 alone, many involving fentanyl pushed openly in tent encampments and street markets – none of the three candidates have made cracking down on these criminal enterprises, enforcing immigration law, or securing the southern border any kind of priority. Instead, they cling to sanctuary policies and “harm reduction” approaches that treat addiction as a lifestyle choice rather than a public safety emergency enabled by open borders and lax enforcement. Chakrabarti frames his entire run as part of a broader “movement” to purge establishment Democrats and install true insurgents bent on systemic overhaul. He pushes aggressive wealth redistribution, expansive social spending programs, and policies that treat private enterprise not as the engine of prosperity but as the root enemy to be regulated and punished. We see his Marxist motives plainly: this isn’t about helping working families or urban recovery but about dismantling capitalism and longstanding Western alliances – in favor of centralized planning, identity-based grievances, and a radical reordering of society.

Connie Chan, currently serving as San Francisco District 1 Supervisor (City council member), matches Chakrabarti stride for stride in her far-left credentials while adding the dubious credential of local governing experience that should terrify anyone paying attention. As a supervisor in our city council, Chan has helped steer – or more accurately, contributed to – the city’s seemingly endless battles with crime, homelessness, and housing shortages through a rigid lens of progressive orthodoxy. She consistently aligns with policies that emphasize “equity” and social services over actual law enforcement, often siding with approaches that echo the spirit of defund-the-police even if not the exact slogan. At candidate forums, she stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Chakrabarti in holding up signs branding Israel’s actions as genocide. Her far-left liberalism shows up in advocacy for ever-expansive welfare programs, heavy restrictions on new development that mix environmental NIMBYism with identity politics, and a persistent reluctance to confront the root causes of urban disorder – including the deadly influx of fentanyl peddled by illegal alien dealers operating with virtual impunity in a self-declared sanctuary city. Beneath her polished rhetoric lurks the same Marxist undertones: a worldview that divides society into oppressor and oppressed, seeks to redistribute resources through government fiat, and treats property rights, effective policing, and basic border security as outdated relics of an inherently unjust system. She extends that same binary lens internationally, fixating on Israel while local addicts continue to perish daily on the sidewalks she helps oversee. She is also a leading voice of the city’s pending CEO Tax.

Scott Wiener, the longtime California State Senator, rounds out this uninspiring top three. Wiener has cultivated a reputation as a prolific legislator, pushing housing density bills, expansive LGBTQ rights measures, and a host of other social reforms.  We must firmly reject any attempt to label him a “moderate” Democrat; that framing is pure fiction peddled by those desperate to maintain a centrist mirage in deep-blue territory. In candidate forums, Wiener initially hedged on the “genocide” question – twirling his “yes/no” sign rather than answering – before quickly pivoting under pressure from the activist crowd to declare that Israel has indeed committed genocide in Gaza. His broader agenda, which includes aggressive climate mandates, criminal justice “reforms” that many critics argue have weakened public safety, and heavy government interventions in both economic and cultural spheres, sits firmly on the left. Like his rivals, Wiener turns a blind eye to the illegal alien drug dealers killing addicts on San Francisco streets at a staggering daily clip, preferring softer, ideologically comfortable approaches that have clearly failed to stem the tide of overdoses and street-level chaos.

His motives carry the same Marxist flavor: a deep faith in top-down government planning to “fix” society, skepticism toward traditional institutions like strong borders and robust policing, and an unrelenting drive to expand state power at the direct expense of personal freedom, fiscal restraint, and community order. He’s no bulwark against radicalism; he’s simply the more polished, insider version operating in a field of ideological fellow travelers. In fact, Wiener hasn’t “fought” for anything but genitalia obsession, stripping parent’s rights, Safe Injection Sites, to protect drug dealers and to keep Pride flags in private businesses.

MR WIENER hasn't "fought" for anything but genitalia obsession, stripping parent's rights, protect drug dealers and to keep Pride flags in private businesses. Oh, not to forget, throwing SF's Jewish voters under the bus over a misguided "genocide" stunt. https://t.co/cQKvh4SoKV

— Richie Greenberg (@greenbergnation) April 20, 2026

Worse, Wiener supports California AB 2624 which seeks to make it a crime for journalists to investigate fraud and report crime. He labels investigative journalist Nick Shirley a “scam artist.”

CLOWN ALERT! Scott Wiener, California State Senator (District 11, San Francisco) is calling you a psycho scam artist that’s exactly what he is, and he’s projecting what he is onto you… 🤡 pic.twitter.com/YzS1OSOYub

— Gail Alfar (@gailalfaratx) April 18, 2026

Wiener craves obsessive power and to deflect from his party’s deepening crisis of confidence and legitimacy.

All three candidates, despite clear stylistic differences, share an underlying ideological thread which are Marxist-inspired at its core. They envision a society where government aggressively reallocates wealth, regulates speech and behavior under the pretexts of equity and compassion, weakens law enforcement and international alliances in favor of feel-good rhetoric, and subordinates economic liberty along with Western security interests to collective goals defined by activist elites.

Chakrabarti and Chan wear their far-left liberalism – and their anti-Zionist obsessions – more brazenly and confrontational. Wiener packages the same agenda with legislative savvy and a touch more polish (nail polish?), but the ultimate destination remains identical: bigger government, less individual accountability, and the steady erosion of the foundational principles that once built American prosperity and urban success.

In a congressional district now plagued by the very progressive policies these Democrats have long enabled or championed – homelessness, waves of retail theft, out-migration, and a continued fentanyl crisis claiming lives daily with virtually no serious pushback against the open-border and sanctuary policies that help fuel it – none of these three offer anything resembling a genuine course correction toward sanity, accountability, or law and order.

Hard-working taxpayers continue to foot the bill for one endless social experiment after another while quality of life stagnates and vulnerable addicts perish in staggering numbers. Until San Francisco voters finally demand real accountability, ideological diversity, and a return to proven principles of law, order, and limited government, the Congressional 11th District will keep serving up more of the same.

San Francisco voters are truly in a bad place.