[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally Blue CA Ad Network

CA House Races Roundup - August 2007

by: David Dayen

Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 12:08:11 PM PDT


We have 15 months to go before Election Day, and it's time for another roundup of Congressional races.  I am going to continue to focus on the top 10 challenges to Republican incumbents.  There is certainly a concern in CA-11 with the Jerry McNerney/Dean Andal race, particularly after McNerney's "I'm a moderate" comment seemed to depress supporters.  On the bright side, he did vote against the ridiculous FISA bill.  And as we go into September, I would hope he would continue his efforts to end the occupation of Iraq.  I will certainly cover the McNerney race in future roundups.

But for now, let's take a look at the top 10 challenges.  I'm going to rank them in order of most possible pickup, including their number from the last roundup.  I'm also adding the "Boxer number."  Basically, seeing how Boxer fared in her 2004 re-election against Bill Jones in a particular district is a decent indicator of how partisan it is.  If I put "57," that means Boxer received 57% of the vote.  Anything over 50, obviously, is good. (over)

David Dayen :: CA House Races Roundup - August 2007
1) CA-04 (Doolittle).  Last month: 1.  Boxer number: 40.  Charlie Brown got some amazing news this week.  Mike Holmes, an Auburn city councilman and a Republican, announced he was running in the primary to unseat ethically challenged Rep. John Doolittle.  Holmes ran a primary race last year and got around 30% of the vote.  This gives Doolittle two challengers next June (Eric Egland has already announced), which is a lot better for Doolittle than one challenger to which anti-Doolittle forces can focus their energies.  This makes it more likely that a wounded Doolittle will survive the primaries (if he's not indicted by then) and face Brown, who's flush with cash and unopposed in his primary.  Brown also made a great impression at the Yearly Kos Convention, so there will be plenty of online support for him.

2) CA-26 (Dreier).  Last month: 2.  Boxer number: 48.  Another candidate who made a big impression at Yearly Kos was Russ Warner.  At the California caucus he gave a version of this speech:

Warner's fundraising stats were already impressive for the district, and now we're starting to see some grassroots support.  If he can tap into what Hilda Solis has been doing online (Solis has endorsed him), there could be a groundswell.  Meanwhile, Dreier is whining that local Democrats blocked funding for expanding the Gold Line light-rail service to "focus on projects in their districts rather than regional priorities."  Right, because the Gold Line doesn't mainly go through Pasadena, in Adam Schiff's district.  Dreier is such a tool.

3) CA-24 (Gallegly).  Last month: 3.  Boxer number: 47.  The August recess is retirement season for GOP Congresscritters.  We've already seen three of them go this week alone.  So naturally thoughts turn to who's next, and Gallegly, who tried to get out in 2006, is a prime candidate.  There certainly must be some talk about it in the district: he's got four declared candidates already: Jill Martinez, Brett Wagner, James "Chip" Fraser, and Mary Pallant.

4) CA-50 (Bilbray).  Last month: 4.  Boxer number: 48.  Michael Wray has dropped out of the primary in CA-50, leaving  John Lee Evans and Nick Leibham to contest for the right to battle Brian Bilbray next November.  The best way to attack Bilbray, who doesn't get off that illegal immigration message for a second, is to highlight his pro-Bush, anti-progress voting record, including denying health care to 6 million American children with his vote against SCHIP last month.  Leibham apparently raised $89,000 last quarter, and Bilbray has a paltry $213,000 CoH, which is interesting.

5) CA-42 (Miller).  Last month: 7.  Boxer number: 41.  The big news here is that we have a candidate, and it's blogger Ron Shepston.  You've undoubtedly read a little about him on Calitics.  LA City Beat has a nice article about Ron and the netroots movement behind him in this race.  It's not going to be easy.  But Ron has raised about $7,200 on ActBlue alone, and his offline fundraising is progressing.  And Miller is still taking heat from the DCCC, who sent out a notice to reporters attacking his vote against SCHIP.

6) CA-41 (Lewis).  Last month: 5.  Boxer number: 43.  Like with Gallegly, we're waiting to see if the rumors about Lewis' impending retirement are true.  We do know that Lewis has continued to bring home the bacon (a little questionable earmarking isn't going to stop him) to his district, and then there's this:

A lobby firm connected to a federal investigation has seen business boom this year for its clients, many of whose projects are in a powerful House appropriator's district.

The House Appropriations Committee's ranking member, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), has sponsored or co-sponsored $55 million worth of earmarks in this year's defense spending bill - close to half of the funds won by the California Republican in the legislation - for clients represented by one firm.

A former appropriations aide to Lewis, Letitia White, and former Rep. Bill Lowery (R-Calif.), who is friendly with Lewis, work at the company, Innovative Federal Strategies (IFS).

Tim Prince is all but in this race.  I met him a few weeks back and he seems like a nice guy.

7) CA-44 (Calvert).  Last month: 6.  Boxer number: 45.  Last month's ruling that a city government agency illegally sold Ken Calvert a bunch of land hasn't gotten a ton of traction yet.  He has been targeted by MoveOn in a Riverside-area protest where protestors presented him with a report on how much money district taxpayers have spent on the war in Iraq.  Calvert is dug in on Iraq, which is of course going to be a major issue in 2008.  Bill Hedrick will be Calvert's opponent, and, um, check out the blog!

8) CA-45 (Bono).  Last month: 8.  Boxer number: 49.  Still no opponent named, and I'm flirting with the idea of dropping any race out of the top 10 unless there's a named candidate.  This is really a missed opportunity right now.

9) CA-46 (Rohrabacher).  Last month: unranked.  Boxer number: 45.  I'm adding nutcase Dana Rohrabacher to the list for a couple reasons.  One, he has an announced opponent (Jim Brandt, who ran against him last year) UPDATE: sorry, I read something wrong, he has no announced opponent yet.  Two, it gives me an opportunity to print this quote.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach/ Long Beach, was baffled when asked recently about his use of the popular online gathering site Facebook.

"Faith book?" the befuddled congressman replied.

Hilarious.

10) CA-52 (open seat).  Last month: 10.  Boxer number: 44.  Duncan Hunter was unable to beat people who weren't running in the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa.  He's gone from this seat, but his son is running and it's a safe bet that the Republicans will retain it.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Seems like there should have to be a candidate (0.00 / 0)
Also, I thought Jim Brandt was NOT rematching? I guess I missed that development.

did I mess that one up (0.00 / 0)
Brandt is running in the 54th AD.  I'll update.

[ Parent ]
CA-41 (0.00 / 0)
Tim Prince ... seems like a nice guy.

Just bear in mind that he's very much part of the Baca camp, with all that entails in terms of relative progressiveness.

--All of my comments are mine, and not those of any organization I belong to unless clearly stated otherwise.

information I needed yesterday! (0.00 / 0)
I don't know how progressive you're going to get out of that district at this time, however.  If he's Baca, OK.  If he's Henry Cuellar, we've got a problem.

Any other options?  We need to build a bench in the IE.


[ Parent ]
Competing everywhere (0.00 / 0)
There are a ton of districts without challengers right now.  That's disconcerting to say the least.

did anyone ever get around to (0.00 / 0)
the list of assembly districts and any competition there?

The penalty that good men pay for not being interested in politics is to be governed by men worse than themselves - Plato, philosopher (427-347 BCE)

[ Parent ]
I'm deliberately staying away from it (0.00 / 0)
Because the February term limits change, if passed, would nullify everything and change the game, with plenty of heretofore termed-out incumbents able to run.  If you want to do it, go ahead.

[ Parent ]
Term Limits, AD seats (0.00 / 0)
Term limits are unlikely to change. The numbers for that ballot measure are bad and, historically, the numbers for initiatives in California only go down.

The 80th in Riverside and Imperial Counties is a seat we can win whether or not changes in term limits give Bonnie Garcia an extra two years.

Personally, I like Gregg Pettis for the seat (he's a city councilman in Cathedral City, the 2nd largest city in the district).

The 78th in San Diego is also a seat we should be able to win.

In 2010, the 68th, currently held by Tran, is an AD that Democrats should contest.


[ Parent ]
80th AD, Manuel Pérez (0.00 / 0)
and several other candidates are going for Bonnie Garcia's seat (given the assumptions David cited).  More on Pérez here:
http://www.calitics....

The CA-45th situation is unfathomable to me, having lived through last year and all the optimism and momentum Democrats had.  Roth's need to make a living is totally understandable, but I can't believe the DCCC hasn't reached out here or at least begun to try.  (Of course, I couldn't believe they weren't giving Roth any money either.  With $1million, with half that, we could have competed in this media market.  We did, however, receive a lovely cake from Rahm on election night.) 

I heard a hopeful report from a fellow Dem just back from DC, and she believes that pulling our region together on a blog will help make us more visible to the DCCC.  So I'm directing everyone to Calitics, tag: Inland Empire.  If all the clubs beef up our websites, and link and crosspost a bit, maybe it won't be too late.  But we'll still need a candidate. 

I'm union staff, but not a spokesperson for my union - all posts represent my views solely.


[ Parent ]
Welcome to California (0.00 / 0)
Where flipping districts is a hard as anywhere in the nation, bar NYC.  It takes the right candidate, a lot of lead time, and massive fundraising to try anything.  The fact is, except for the occasional strong State Sen or Asm. terming out, we're always going to have trouble recruiting really top tier challengers.  That's not to say we shouldn't have someone on every ballot, every election, presenting a viable alternative.  Strong candidates, be they ex-politicos or not, are tough to find, and tougher when they're faced with the proposition of fighting steeply uphill battles. 

[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
The vast majority are tough sells.  But there was only one district without a Republican last time, and I can't imagine that many places are looking tougher this time around.

[ Parent ]
So I'm talking to an Orange County Bruin... (5.00 / 2)
who's worked for Loretta Sanchez in the past, and he's telling me that the thing we really need to do is run on city council and school board seats.  Get the Democratic name brand out there.

He specifically cited Steve Young in CA-48, running against John Campbell, as making a mistake.  He said the Republican city councilmen ran unopposed there, and that THAT is where to make an impact.  He made it sound like we're missing the trees for the forest, so to speak, that by focusing on U.S. Congressional races, we're forgetting about local city council and school board seats, which is where we can get our "bench" from.

I'm fully behind Dean's 50-state strategy, but when I hear that those local Republicans can get a free ride and propose batshit insane proposals on their school boards, I do wonder if we can do more to promote those very localized races.

Take the case of Jim Brandt, who is now running for an Assembly seat after getting his name out there running against the odious Rohrabacher.  He also mentioned, but I can't find any information online, that Robert Rodriguez (who ran against Buck McKeon in CA-25) and Cynthia Matthews are running for smaller local seats where they actually stand a good chance of winning and making further inroads for the Democratic Party in those "red" areas.  He also said Irvine's city council has a Democratic majority, though that website doesn't list their affiliations, so I have no idea who belongs to which party.

What do you think about the issues he raised?


Irvine as example (0.00 / 0)
Irvine has had a Democratic majority since at least the 1980s. But ALL municipal and county elections in CA are nonpartisan - party affiliation doesn't show up on a ballot, and as a result neither is it often in media reports, so it's difficult to use city councils as a place to develop a brand. Otherwise Irvine's Democratic successes might have translated into better results there - Irvine is smack in the middle of CA-48.

Where it is useful is in building a political career. City council and/or county board of supervisors is a very typical first step toward running for state legislature, just as being a mayor of a big city usually propels one toward the Senate or the Governor's office.

If it's difficult to use city government as a base to build a party, it's also easier to use it as a base to build a movement, to create new political alignments and coalitions that can feed into Democratic campaigns for higher office.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave


[ Parent ]
Irvine (0.00 / 0)
Irvine is still a city that could produce strong Democratic candidates, regardless of whether the races are ostensibly nonpartisan or not.

You mentioned mayors and city councilmembers running for Governor and the legislature, which are partisan seats.

Why not Congress?

I would argue that part of the problem (and I don't mean to refer to Irvine here, which has developed a strong progressive tradition and whose voters should be commended) is that local electeds do not work to build the local party.

They look at the ballot and don't see a D or R after their name, so feel like they can't be proud Democrats (or Republicans) in municipal office.


[ Parent ]
I agree with you (0.00 / 0)
That local government is an excellent way for us to grow new talent, get people's names in front of voters, and connect voters to up and coming Democrats as a way of building the brand.

But nonpartisan elections throw monkey wrenches into that. There are surely some of these folks that get elected to local government who happily downplay their party affiliation, out of a desire to not alienate voters unnecessarily (from their POV). I'm not familiar with the rules of local elections so I don't know to what degree the parties can fund local candidates - I know they endorse - or whether they're even interested in spending money on that.

Not all local officeholders want to move up, either. Many feel happy being in local government in their hometown, real or adopted, and have no desire to make the jump - meaning they're much less interested in building party organization.

None of that is meant to take away from your overall point, which is a good one - they're just factors we need to consider.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave


[ Parent ]
The Bruin is right, IMO. (0.00 / 0)
I absolutely agree that prospective Dem candidates in red areas get too hypnotized by partisan seats and should be working on nonpartisan races instead. For one thing, it's good experience.

As people wiser than I say, there are no Democratic or Republican potholes. A Dem can get on a city council, repair a bunch of potholes, shmooze the right people, and make a name for him/herself. When his or her name later appears on the partisan ballot, people from his/her city will remember how s/he did a good job on those potholes and will vote for him/her regardless of whether his/her name is followed by an R.

It's true that Irvine has a majority of Dems on their city council. The Dems are Agran, Kang, and Krom.


[ Parent ]
walking and chewing gum (0.00 / 0)
both state legislative and local council seats are not only important, they're a key part of the 50-state strategy as articulated by Howard Dean, and is the reason for being for groups like DFA.  There ought to be a major effort to aggressive recruit bold and talented candidates for every governmental position and build a progressive majority from the ground up.  And we all have a role to play in that.  (and the state legislature isn't far down enough, Jim Brandt should be thinking lower).

That does not mean that Congressional Republicans should go unchallenged.  Offering a challenger to even the safest Republican candidate forces them to at least pay token attention to their own districts, and this helps other candidates who are on the verge of breaking through.  A challenger for Dan Lungren is crucially important for Charlie Brown.  A challenger for Dana Rohrabacher helps Russ Warner.  These things are all connected, and the point of changing the map and challenging everywhere is to challenge EVERYWHERE.  This is especially true in red areas, which we can kiss goodbye if we never offer a partisan challenge in any meaningful way.


[ Parent ]
Don't disagree, but... (0.00 / 0)
I know of some instances where a terrific person running as a sacrificial lamb in a red area knows perfectly well s/he has no chance. If the person were to run for City Council, they could well be elected to that spot. And then we'd have a good progressive on council who would fight for important issues.

I'd certainly like to walk AND chew gum -- have people running for BOTH seats. But in the very red areas, the sad fact is that we only find so many folks who are willing to stick their necks out, and only so many folks who are willing to bring out their wallets to support them.

In my area most city councils, water boards, and school boards are 100% Reep. I think it's more important to change that than to have a sacrificial lamb running for every partisan seat. And, as I say, it probably IS an either/or choice.


[ Parent ]
It can't be an either/or choice (8.00 / 1)
It's not an either/or choice for the Republicans.

I just finished reading the opinion section in the UT (despite the fact that it often makes my tummy queasy, and my head spin), and as the San Diego GOP Chair Tony Krvaric said in an interview, the GOP plans to run candidates for everything from vermin control district seats to mayor, and that the idea of a non-partisan office is nonsense. 

"Every race is a partisan race as far as I'm concerned." 

You have to think like that to win, and the Republicans have been doing it for years. In San Diego, the local offices have been reliably Republican for a generation because of that approach. When's the last time there was a Democrat on the SD Board of Supervisors? I don't even remember. Cities, counties, special districts, and school boards are the places where the issues that affect people every single day are found. Those offices are hugely important, afaic and it's pathetic to just cede them to the Republicans, as has been done here for as long as I can remember. 

I couldn't find the interview with Krvaric online, but here's a Lionel Van Deerlin opinion piece where he refers to it.


[ Parent ]
Ok, so here's my dilemma. What do I do? (0.00 / 0)
I've been working and working to find Dems to run for office. I've recruited one person -- Betty Loop -- who lives in Smithville, in AD 88, to run. There are no Dems on the Smithville city council, and registration in AD 88 is 60/40 in favor of the Reeps.

Betty knows a lot of people in Smithville. She's involved in the Chamber of Commerce and can probably get elected to the council. But she has no chance of being elected to AD 88.

The CDP wants her to run for AD 88 because they need a warm body there. Betty wants to help the Party and will run for whichever office she's asked to run for.

What should I do? Encourage her to run for the office she can win or convince her to do what the Party wants her to do?


[ Parent ]
Personally (0.00 / 0)
I'd encourange her to run locally. But then you need to remember I don't know a darn thing. That's just my gut feeling.

I'm certainly no expert, and I know people at the grassroots are doing the best they can, but it frustrates me to no end to just see R R R R R R R for my entire adult lifetime in these down ticket races.


[ Parent ]
Ask her... (0.00 / 0)
What SHE wants to do?  Is she up for running a tough, but almost guaranteed to fail, race for Assembly?  Or does she want to run a hard race and get onto the council?  Screw what the CDP wants her to do, she should make her mind up. 

If she runs for Asm., and she runs hard, she'll get her name out there, meet a lot of people, develop some supporters, and be in a position to run for a different office in the future with more experience and connections.  If she runs for city council (and wins) she gets exposure, meets people, gets to prove her chops as a leader.  They're different paths, but both can do a lot in terms of long term party building.

(Also, a note about running to have a warm body in a race:  You NEVER know what is going to happen in a race that won't be decided for 15 months.  People drop out, scandals, all kinds of things, and there are people in every level of elected government who are there because they happened to be a warm body on the ballot at the right time.)


[ Parent ]
To echo other comments (0.00 / 0)
She should seek the job she wants, not the job other people tell her she should want.

Also, I want to take small issue with the idea that a 60/40 district is an automatic loser.  The particular district you're talking about is of course more complex than that and I know perfectly well that you didn't mean to suggest that simply a 60/40 situation makes it untenable, but I think it's important to be clear about taking each situation on a case-by-case basis and not just dismissing based on numbers.


[ Parent ]
AD 88? Smithville? (0.00 / 0)
  OK there are lots of towns in CA and I may not have heard of them all but I know that there is no AD-88. Umm, there are 80 seats in the Assembly. Is this a hypothetical or a trick question? Is the number just wrong on the district? Inquiring minds wonder...

[ Parent ]
It's a hypothetical N/T (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
That is the 50 state strategy (0.00 / 0)
As other comments have noted, it's more than running someone in every Congressional race, and building infrastructure, voter roles, donor lists, etc for Federal races.  The idea with the 50 state strategy, which I agree with whole heartedly, is that we need to start developing a bench of candidates, and build up the local party and, as you aptly put it, develop the brand.  All of the resources we develop during a race, be it assembly, school board, or congressional, need to then be retained by the local party for use in future races.  And putting strong candidates up for local races also has the delightful effect of then winning, and keeping the nutso proposals out of the school board. 

[ Parent ]
Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox