[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-24: The Strangest Election Result I've Seen

by: David Atkins (thereisnospoon)

Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:42:31 AM PDT


(Low-turnout primaries are really tricky things.  And it's so hard to run a traditional grassroots campaign in California.  This is a pretty amazing story, and ties in to what I was talking about below. - promoted by David Dayen)

Well, one thing's for sure: Democrats are tired of big business and the insurance industry.  So much so, in fact, that Democrats in CA-24 elected to vote in landslide numbers for Marta Jorgensen, a candidate who did little traditional campaigning to speak of--including, apparently, not even purchasing the state voter file--simply on the basis of the ballot designation "educator".

The Democratic primary race in CA-24 to challenge perennial do-nothing Republican Elton Gallegly was a 3-way contest between progressive favorite Mary Pallant, the previous Democratic contestant Jill Martinez, and political neophyte Marta Jorgensen.

The outcome of this race is difficult for me to write about, as I was very enthusiastic about Mary's campaign: her progressive stances on issues from Iraq to healthcare to accountability for the Bush Administration are all very attractive, and of the three candidates, she is by far the most charismatic and hard-nosed.  She also knows exactly what it takes to run a good campaign, and it was something of an open secret in the local political scene that Elton Gallegly was very nervous about having to face her in November.  I was so impressed with Mary (and still am) that I signed on to become to her volunteer Netroots Outreach Coordinator.  But in a low-turnout election, the strangest things can happen.

David Atkins (thereisnospoon) :: CA-24: The Strangest Election Result I've Seen
The three candidates were contrasts in styles.  Of the three, Mary had by far the best campaign organization, ground game, and persuasion--the sorts of nuts-and-bolts messaging and GOTV politics that anyone who has been to DFA training courses like I have (or Camp Wellstone training, as Mary has) knows are supposed to win you elections if done right.  Mary raised tens of thousands of dollars, and spent them in the most effective way that could have been advised: on robocalling and direct mail.  Her team of volunteers spent countless hours phonebanking, securing thousands of "definitely yes" voters, and we had a decent earned media campaign of local appearances, fundraisers, and letters to the editor.  Mary also secured the endorsements of many progrsesive figures and organizations, including Sheila Kuehl, the Progressive Democrats of America and the California Nurses Assocation.

Jill Martinez, by contrast, ran what could best be described as the "Hillary Clinton" campaign: as the previous Democratic nominee, she ran as a the candidate of inevitability and the establishment: the nose-to-the-grindstone Democrat who had always worked hard in the district, and would continue to work hard for it.  Unfortunately for Martinez, she was still over $80,000 in debt from her 2006 campaign (nor was she exactly forthcoming about that fact, to put it mildly), and thus did not put in place any serious kind of ground game in terms of phonebanking, mailers or other nuts-and-bolts politics--preferring instead to appear at as many events as possible to get earned media, and boost name recognition through yard signs.

Marta Jorgensen, meanwhile, is from the northernmost part of the district (traditionally underserved by the more centrally-focused representation of Gallegly), and essentially entered the race late as a spoiler looking to highlight the issues of that portion of the district.  She had no campaign apparatus to speak of, attended few events, and had no significant endorsements to speak of.  On April 24th, Marta Jorgensen quit the race and endorsed Martinez.  Then, on May 19th, she re-entered the race--again due to a perceived slight to her part of the district:

"I was just getting used to the idea of not being in the race but I had some people contact me this week who were really getting upset that they lived in the central valley up here, the Lompoc valley, Orcutt, andparts of Santa Maria," Jorgensen said. "They felt like the candidates were never coming up here to campaign. I'd never seen them so I really helped what they were doing."

After re-entering, Jorgensen did not do any significant campaigning--and yet, come election day Jorgensen cruised to an easy victory with 46.1% of the vote in a 3-way race.  Martinez, meanwhile, carried 31.6% to Pallant's 22.3%.  How was this possible?

Apparently, the ballot designations overrode any other political concerns: Democrats far preferred to vote for an "educator" over a "businesswoman (Martinez).  And they sure as hell weren't going to vote for an "insurance agent" (Pallant), no matter how progressive her positions or effective her ground game and GOTV.  The results were shocking to everyone--not least of all to Jorgensen, who wasn't even apparently tracking the results on election night.  As the Ventura County Star reports:

Apparently powered by the appeal of the word "educator," a teacher and former nurse from Solvang appeared headed to an unexpected win in the three-way race for the Democratic nomination in the 24th Congressional District.

Marta Jorgensen, reached by phone Tuesday evening and informed of the early returns, was incredulous. "You're kidding! That's a pretty amazing thing."

For three weeks during the campaign, Jorgensen had suspended campaigning and announced she was supporting Jill Martinez, a developer of affordable housing and the Democratic nominee from two years ago.

But, saying she thought Martinez and Oak Park insurance agent Mary Pallant were not paying enough attention to Santa Barbara County voters, Jorgensen jumped back in.

"I was certain I had shot myself in the foot on that," she said. "I thought maybe I'd get 8 or 10 percent."

As the article goes on to point out, the ballot designations were the key:

The key to Jorgensen's apparent victory was likely her ballot designation: "Educator."

In a race in which none of the candidates spent much money to introduce themselves to voters, many Democrats apparently preferred that designation to those listed on the ballot below Martinez ("Businesswoman/Housing Developer") and Pallant ("Insurance Agent").

Jorgensen teaches computer classes in her home, and last year taught technology and journalism to third-, fourth- and fifth-graders at a private school in the Santa Ynez Valley.

And evidently, "businesswoman/housing developer" was significantly more attractive than "insurance agent."

Unfortunately, Jorgensen's victory means that this race is effectively off the map for Democrats, since it's unlikely that Jorgensen will be able to command the sort of fundraising, institutional support and visibility necessary to make a serious run at Gallegly.  While I commend her on her victory over both Jill and Mary and hope she puts together an effective race, either of the latter two candidates would have made a serious run at Gallegly forcing him to sweat, and even in defeat would have helped build the local Democratic Party and leverage significant volunteer efforts.  Now it appears that we will have to wait for another two years for a higher-turnout election and an even bluer district demographic for a serious challenge to Gallegly's awful representation here.

Nevertheless, let this be a lesson for many Democrats currently considering elected office: among the many other considerations in an election season, don't overlook the power of a progressive-sounding ballot designation that shies away from anything having to do with business, housing development, insurance or the like.  Democrats are fed up with anything related to Republican-sounding industries and are looking for a change--even if they do sometimes look for it in the most shallow ways.

And that, it must be admitted, is actually a good thing.

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
tips (7.50 / 6)
for getting involved--even if it hurts sometimes...

I Was Surprised Too... (5.00 / 1)
When I saw the early returns, I went to directly to Marta's website to find out who this person was, because I never saw a yard sign, didn't get a mailer, never got a phone call, and barely noticed the news report that she had re-entered the race.

She appears to be a very credible progressive Democrat, one I would be glad to work for... and hey, I barely knew who Barack Obama was at first!

This may be the year for David and Goliath stories.

I've been frustrated that we haven't been able to get elected officials from the city councils, county supervisors, or State Legislature to run against Elton Gullible Gallegly.

I think many casual voters default to someone who got elected to some kind of a something somewhere before. Brett Wagner at least had experience as a DC staffer, but every other candidate for the 24th in recent memory has been a politcal newcomer. What gives?

Does Gallegly, standing astride his Simi Valley Fortress, seem that invincible? Are all the professional Pols here are just waiting for him to retire? Perhaps a "Joan of Arc" is exactly what we need to take him down.


[ Parent ]
Obama had a ground game and organization (0.00 / 0)
all the more power to Jorgensen had she won by out-organizing, out-working, out-endorsing, or out-raising us or whatever.  But without a real apparatus, she has no real shot against Elton.

I think people are waiting for Elton to retire around here.  I also think there's more than a little timidity in the local party.


[ Parent ]
it seems there is another lesson in here (0.00 / 0)
that you're sort of missing:

local politics matters, and you can't just ignore parts of your district and expect that they'll fall in line just because.

i'm convinced that this is what put yamada over the top in the 8th AD race as well.

rather than giving up on the race because it didn't fall your way, it might be worth seeing if the organization that was built up under pallant can be used to supplement the inland santa barbara county base jorgenson apparently has. after all, that part of the district is part of gallegy's base, so perhaps she'll weaken him in ways not obvious at first.


You're assuming a false premise (0.00 / 0)
it's not that Jorgensen had a base of support in SB county.  She dominated everywhere, including Ventura.

[ Parent ]
she did better in her part of the district (0.00 / 0)
but she cleaned up everywhere.  And most voters had no idea who any of the candidates were, so those issues weren't really a factor.

[ Parent ]
and even then (0.00 / 0)
far from calling it a base of support, what we should really say is that SB county represents the "default position" of the electorate because they were the least informed about the race.

So, the results in Ventura County really only seem to reflect the slight mitigating factor of those voters actually knowing something about Mary and Jill and voting for one or the other on that account.


[ Parent ]
perhaps it might be a good idea (0.00 / 0)
to try and ask voters why they voted how they did. assuming they were ignorant and uninformed doesn't help you with how they made that decision. for future races, one ought to know whether it was the educator title, or whether it was something else.

[ Parent ]
i suggested that very idea to Mary (0.00 / 0)
we'll see if she pursues it.  But logically, there aren't a whole lot of other explanations.

[ Parent ]
you're not kidding (0.00 / 0)
in my County Central Committee race, I came in 14th out of 17, despite getting valuable local endorsements and being on slate mailers.  The reason is likely my ballot designation:

"Research Consultant."

Yeah, that doesn't help.


I feel your pain (0.00 / 0)
When I ran for central committee in 2006, under similar circumstances (endorsements, slates) my ballot designation read "Web Developer".  (I was alone in having an actual candidate website, I must admit...)

I came in 6th in a field of 6. :D

No one spent the kind of money that would be needed to do mailers or anything of the sort, even pooling resources, and interest in public events sponsored by the likes of DFA/PDA or local Dem clubs for central committee panels was nil.  

So for 90% of everybody, all they saw was your profession... or if you were an incumbent. And often (not always) they could tell your gender from your name.

Incumbents, teachers and nurses ran away with the vote in all the contested DCC elections.

I wish that CC candidates could at least have statements filed that got printed in the voter's handbook, like other candidates.  In my county there's not money for the registrar to include those... at would at least offer a platform for us to make a brief case for who we are and what we stand for.

It's just a sad fact that there's so little interest in central committees, or even city and country local elections, for the most part.  

Too many people's interest in politics seems inversely related to their leverage and proximity. :(

These opinions are my own, and are not representative of those of any of my employers.


[ Parent ]
that's infuriating (0.00 / 0)
and has to change.  So only teachers and nurses should get elected to CC positions?  yuck.

[ Parent ]
One more thing... (0.00 / 0)
It sucks that you lost.  I'm sorry, man.

These opinions are my own, and are not representative of those of any of my employers.

[ Parent ]
Great diary thereisnospoon (0.00 / 0)
but I have to disagree with you on one point - don't count out  a competitive race in November just yet.  I've corresponded with Marta since her victory last night (I had the pleasure of working with her during the Draft Gore days) and she fully intends to run a full-throttle and competitive campaign.

I also did some virtual phonebanking for her, as I'm sure many others did, so while the ballot certainly helped, it wasn't everything.  This can be seen in the 12 point differential between the two counties' respective results.

I admire your work and passion during the primary on behalf of Mary, but I truly hope you and others hop on board Marta's effort to take down Gallegly.


you know, i'll offer what support I can (0.00 / 0)
but I can't in all honesty go out and ask people at Calitics and DailyKos for donations to Marta when there are so many other worthy candidates out there who need help.  I mean, she wasn't even watching the returns...

[ Parent ]
Why not? (6.50 / 2)
A 50 state strategy should not fail just because we don't have the perfect candidate. She might not top the lists - Debbie Cook, Russ Warner, Charlie Brown, Julie Bornstein would likely do that - but if she plans to run a serious campaign, she deserves some support.

Hell, I'll go out and ask for those donations if necessary.

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


[ Parent ]
hey go for it (0.00 / 0)
for me to hang my credibility on it and take anyone's money, I have to see some serious campaign organization.  And I don't see it yet.

[ Parent ]
It's clear (0.00 / 0)
that Marta will have to take the lead on raising awareness of her candidacy.

As it looks right now, the Congressional race in Southern California that looks like it will be the center of attention is CA-26, and I'm looking forward to walking precincts for Russ Warner this fall.


[ Parent ]
I have to ask (8.00 / 1)
Why it was that ballot designators overrode a grassroots strategy, especially on the part of Mary Pallant. While I am sure the designation played some role, why didn't/couldn't the grassroots campaign Pallant ran contact enough voters to overcome that issue? In a low turnout election one might think candidates with a decent activist network would not get tripped up by this, as you'd expect the folks who DO show up to have more information.

Perhaps the answer does lie in David Dayen's assessment of the flawed PDA strategy. But I think Pallant's campaign would do well to conduct a critical self-examination so that when she runs again in 2010 - as I hope she does - she'll have a better result.

Couldn't hurt for her to also teach some classes in the meantime...

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


I tutor Latin (0.00 / 0)
that qualifies me to list myself as an educator, right?

[ Parent ]
I think so (0.00 / 0)
And yeah, sorry to hear you lost. Going to try again?

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

[ Parent ]
Definitely (0.00 / 0)
unless I'm an ex officio member by then.

[ Parent ]
Maybe Ron can appoint you (0.00 / 0)
oh wait...

Just jivin' Ron!


[ Parent ]
If I get my way (0.00 / 0)
Ron wouldn't have been able to appoint me anyway.

I'm proposing a rules change at the Executive Board meeting that would only allow electeds and nominees to appoint from within their own districts.


[ Parent ]
we contacted over 3,000 voters directly by phone (0.00 / 0)
but it clearly wasn't enough, and the direct mail pieces weren't effective at all, apparently.  The PDA strategy of "let's send emails but do no actual on-the-ground organizing" is obviously pointless.

The first thing we need to do is alter the ballot designation (which we can actually do without too much effort).  The second is to spend the next two years getting Mary out in front of every Democratic and progressive group so that they get to know her better.  And in the next campaign, I would actually start people canvassing neighborhoods and knocking on doors six months or more prior to the primary.


[ Parent ]
3,000? (8.00 / 1)
The way you were writing, I was under the assumption that there was a massive campaign that lost for the sole reason of the "educator" next to Jorgensen.  As someone who has worked and watched a number of primary campaigns, 3,000 voters is not much at all, especially all by phone.  I think John Hall had 1,000 VOLUNTEERS on Primary Day in the '06 NY-19 primary, and not surprisingly, he won convincingly.  You contacted 3,000 people and got 7,000 votes...were you just assuming the rest would flock to your candidate?

Let me tell you, it does not take long to assembly a campaign that contacts 3,000 voters.  Heck, the candidate herself should be able to do that EASY in a month's time, and door-to-door no less.

While I certainly mean no offense, this all makes me more curious (and skeptical) that you don't give Marta the slightest of chances to run a better and competitive campaign in the general.


[ Parent ]
the reason is (0.00 / 0)
that she had no campaign organization in the primary, which means that she'll need to build one from the ground up, starting with the general election.

Most successful candidates already have infrastructure, funding sources, etc. that carry over from their primary campaign.  Marta--whom I have no doubt is a solid progressive Democrat, mind you--has none of that.

Jill had some name recognition from her prior nomination.  Mary had voter contacts and some money.  Marta had neither--no organization, no money, no visibility, no volunteers to speak of.

That means that the only explanation for her resounding win is her ballot designation.

I have nothing against Marta at all.  But I don't see why it's so hard to accept the explanation that a candidate with no infrastructure, no money, no name ID and no volunteers won simply because of a more "progressive" ballot designation.


[ Parent ]
My point was (8.00 / 1)
clearly she does not have much ground to make up considering, Pallant, whose organization, I'm told, was the best in the field, contacted a mere 3,000 people.

Lonely 'ole me, living in NY, phoned almost 100 voters in the district for Marta.  I don't have any knowledge of Marta's campaign, but I know many Gore supporters who also made calls on her behalf...it would not surprise me to learn that she contacted far more than 3,000 voters.  Also realize that she made many contacts and knocked on a lot of doors as a Gore ballot organizer.

For some reason, people here are impressed by 3,000 voter contacts.  That is not the sign of a competitive campaign, that is a sign of a VERY lackluster - like I said, John Hall had 1,000 VOLUNTEERS on Primary Day last time around.  Marta does not have much ground to make up and I'd be very hesitant to characterize her win as nothing more than her ballot designation.


[ Parent ]
well, i may be understating pallant's numbers (0.00 / 0)
3,000 was the number of sure Pallant voters.  The campaign doubtless contacted many, many more than that.

[ Parent ]
I got involved a little late (0.00 / 0)
and you're right, by the standards of many serious campaigns the numbers involved aren't high.

But they were a heck of a lot higher than those of the other candidates--and I may well be understating the numbers for all I know.


[ Parent ]
also, 3,000 was just the sure Pallant voters (0.00 / 0)
how many were actually contacted, i have no idea.

[ 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