Barak Gila, @barakgila

May 6, 2026

CASTRO, SAN FRANCISCO — “This campaign has been heated on social media,” noted moderator Joe Fitz Rodriguez, of the SF Standard, “so please keep your critiques policy-related.” He noted he had discretion to ask candidates to stop talking, and even to leave the forum, if they interrupted, insulted, or otherwise violated the rules. Well, he needn’t have worried. Tonight’s forum between the candidates vying to replace Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi in San Francisco’s 11th congressional district, was a staid affair. The candidates generally repeated their campaign talking points, and refrained from attacking one another except obliquely. They mostly supported similar policies, with the exception of conservative Democrat Marie Hurabiell.

They differed in style and tone: Scott Wiener, a lawyer who has represented the Castro on the SF Board of Supervisors, and the city of SF and northern San Mateo County in the CA State Senate, emphasized having delivered for San Franciscans for decades, and working with moderate Democrats as well as Republicans to pass legislation. Saikat Chakrabarti, a Stripe engineer-turned-left-wing-activist, who helped get Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez elected and briefly served as her chief of staff, decried corporate Democrats and said he would wield activist groups to pressure Democrats into ushering in New Deal-style progressive change. Connie Chan, an immigrant from China and current Supervisor representing the Richmond, name-dropped various establishment Democratic politicians, as well as public sector employee unions, who have endorsed her campaign, and styled herself as the champion of the working class. Marie Hurabiell set herself apart as the lone moderate in the race, pointing to her support for popular Mayor Lurie and CA Prop 36 (which passed in 2024, strengthening penalties for some crimes in the state and made it easier for judges to push drug offenders into treatment programs).

Moderator Rodriguez and the group of neighborhood associations who selected the questions for the debate chose questions focused on the top issues facing the city; there weren’t gotcha yes/no questions or lighter personal questions. He asked about immigration, housing affordability, affordability generally, public transit, AI regulation, and their top priority / how they would deliver for San Francisco. Nancy Pelosi, who has held the seat in the House for 40 years and hasn’t made an endorsement in the race, loomed large; with the exception of Chakrabarti, candidates described her and her achievements in glowing terms.

One of the more varied set of answers was regarding AI regulation. Hurabiell supported regulations that wouldn’t have too much paperwork and cripple innovation; Chan said her priorities were safety and (human) workforce protection, and said she would allow local governments to craft their own AI regulation. Wiener mentioned the potential of AI to make the world better, cure disease, and improve lives, and pointed to SB 53, which he wrote and got passed in California and was a model for New York state. Chakrabarti was visibly bemused by the question, and started his 30 second response by pointing the audience to the detailed plan on his website. He said that current laws’ fines of $1M/day are too small, and said that profits from productivity gains should go to workers. He criticized AI industry donations to politicians, leading Rodriguez to offer a slightly confused Scott Wiener the only rebuttal of the night; Wiener emphasized that his legislation had been passed against objections from big tech.

On most questions, candidates tended to espouse similar programs, and emphasized opposing Trump, getting federal funding for transit, HIV/LGBTQ programs, healthcare, childcare, etc. Answers sounded like campaign literature listicles, and they mostly opted not to attack each other’s policies when there were differences — with Hurabiell occasionally being the exception. For example, Chakrabarti and Chan were not criticized for their support of the one-time 5% tax on billionaire wealth that has been proposed for CA’s November ballot (The measure is structured in such a way that Sergey Brin would have been taxed as if he owned 25% of Google, not 3% of it, because of his voting shares, had he not left California; in this and other cases the tax could be more than 100% of one’s net worth). Regardless, though, the audience was left with a pretty accurate impression of the contours of the race, and the type of appeals each candidate is making.

Campaign staffers holding up signs at the forum entrance

The event was held at the Randall Museum, a science museum on a hill in the Castro. Wiener mentioned winning funding for the museum when he represented its district in City Hall; Chakrabarti mentioned living nearby at Duboce Park and taking his daughter there. Doors opened at 6:30p, and the main auditorium where the debate was held was already full at 6:42p; there was also an overflow room, and the forum was streamed on YouTube. As attendees arrived, they were greeted by the now-infamous van accusing Chakrabarti of living in Maryland. They were also handed Pissed-Off Voter Guides. Inside the museum, representatives from neighborhood associations set up a booth to sign folks up, and the Wiener and Chakrabarti campaigns were handing out window signs and signing up volunteers.

The anti-Chakrabarti van now highlights the claim he was fired from his job as AOC’s chief of staff

Polling of the race has shown Wiener ahead, with Chakrabarti trailing by 5-20% and the other candidates further behind. Prediction markets have Wiener as the favorite with around 70% chance of winning, and Chakrabarti with most of the remaining 30%. The race will become clearer after the June 2 primary result. One potentially critical factor is who, if anyone, Connie Chan would endorse assuming she loses the primary, and who her ~10%-15% of the electorate would lean towards.

Quotes used in this piece have been edited for clarity.