CA-10: A Quick Post-Mortem

Interesting that if you add up the other 3 top Dems running (0.00 / 0)

... Woods, Buchanon, DeSaulnier, more people voted for "not- Garamendi" than the Lt Gov of CA going to DC as their congressperson. Doesn't sound like much of a mandate.

The next time somebody says an Iraq war veteran of 2 terms and a West Point grad is too "liberal" for the district, use the word "chickensquawker." Liberally.  

---

by: AmericanRiverCanyon @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 11:01:44 AM CDT

name a Congressional special election (0.00 / 0)

where what you said above was not the case.  Laura Richardson and Judy Chu didn't have a mandate either.  And they didn't have to.  They just needed the most votes in the primary.

---

by: David Dayen @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 11:05:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Patti Garamendi (5.00 / 1)

For CA-3?

Hey, why not?  

---

by: nicholasmhatten @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 11:45:37 AM CDT

I still wish Garamendi would have run against Lungren (0.00 / 0)

I agree DeSaulnier ran a crappy campaign and the three local candidates split the vote against the carpetbagger.

Garamendi will be a solid national dem vote, but he knows nothing about my little unincorporated neighborhood near Walnut Creek. At least DeSaulnier helped get a trail and signal in so the kids here could ride their bikes to school.

---

by: mo @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 13:00:54 PM CDT

My own thoughts ... (0.00 / 0)

You're right, Dave, that the residency attack totally backfired on DeSaulnier - but only outside of Contra Costa County.  He finished with 4% in Solano County - behind even some of the no-name Republican candidates - which is nothing short of utter humiliation.

The SUSA polls, however, suggest that DeSaulnier was able to narrow the gap ever-so-slightly because of the residency issue -- but not nearly enough to make a big difference.

But I don't think it really hurt him much in Contra Costa, and might have helped him there a little.  Sure, you can say he even lost his home county - but the truth is that Garamendi had such an advantage of name recognition, that I would argue he was even favored in CCC.  The fact DeSaulnier held him to just 4 points there is a small consolation prize for him.

The problem with the residency attack is that DeSaulnier took the fall for being the one to bring it up.  I think all of Garamendi's challengers wanted to see it raised as an issue, but none of them wanted to be the one to bring it up - for fear of looking like a dick.  DeSaulnier did, and got punished for it.

As for Garamendi's politics, yeah you're right.  On paper, he's a progressive.  I would even go so far as to say that he's probably the most liberal statewide elected official - which is why over the years I've always wanted to like him.

Trouble with Garamendi, is that he's a condescending prick who only thinks about himself - and doesn't listen to anyone.  We were going to keep this seat blue regardless of him in the race, and I would say there wasn't much of a difference ideologically among the top four Democrats.  But Garamendi is a coward who wanted the easy way out, so he ran in the 10th - rather than the 3rd.  It's not so much a residency issue, as it was blatant opportunism.

I tried talking to Garamendi about this at the Convention, and he was his blowhard self.  He could have at least humored me and listened to what I had to tell him, tell me he appreciated my input but had thought it through and decided to run in the 10th.  Instead, he interrupted me, looked straight into my eyes and said "it doesn't matter what you tell me - you're not going to change my mind."  In other words, he said I was small and didn't matter - and he wasn't going to bother his little head around what some blogger punk thinks.

Ironically, Garamendi comes to the Young Democrats caucus at Convention every year - and gives the same condescending lecture about the Sixties and the Peace Corps.  It's not the kind of speech any of this group of 20 and 30-something activists haven't heard many times before, and he just comes off as the annoying grandpa.  Frankly, I've had enough of his condescension.

You can read more of my rant here: http://www.beyondchron.org/new...

---

by: paulhogarth @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 13:01:52 PM CDT

that's my thought too (0.00 / 0)

He is out for himself first, and saw this cool opportunity to hang out in DC. I got mailers from Bill Clinton and Al Gore endorsing him. His goal will be to spend the minimum time possible in our district that he doesn't know squat about.

---

by: mo @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 13:08:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's not a consolation prize (5.00 / 1)

Residency attacks never work.  Nobody can name one instance where they have.  The SUSA polls were dead-on and they remained dead on, DeSaulnier didn't gain anything from the attack, he finished at the upper bound of the margin of error from the two-week old poll, and well within the margin of error of the final poll.  And using that attack to people who didn't know who the hell he was in the first place is just political malpractice, putting him in a hole he couldn't possibly overturn in CCC.

Garamendi isn't a coward, he's smart - politicians generally take the path of least resistance almost by definition.  I care more about how he votes than how he acts.  Furthermore, electing a legislator would have killed us in a several upcoming budget fights.

I think Schwarz will pick Bob Hertzberg.  I can just see the George Skelton column about it now.

---

by: David Dayen @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 13:12:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where I agree with Paul (0.00 / 0)

I met Garamendi at a campaign event a few years, and as the old saying goes, I thought there was no there there. He really turned off my wife who is a good judge of character. So maybe I wouldn't say he's a "condescending prick who only thinks about himself - and doesn't listen to anyone" that's not too far from why I have always held my nose before voting for him. I hope he will be a good Representive however.

---

by: dslc @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 22:48:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

SF Chron picture today... (0.00 / 0)

Had him in the center of a bunch of young white guys looking at a computer screen (maybe a woman slightly in the frame).

His paparazzi were like that, too. Bunch of young white guys. Not at ALL representative of the district or of CA. Exceedingly disappointing - even tho' I used to really like him.

I'm guessing it's a result of his self-absorption and his "better than thou" attitude.

I wonder if it'll be the lifetime sinecure G anticipates?

DeSaulnier has important work to do in the Senate. I'm actually glad he didn't win, tho' his ineffective campaign troubles me for the future.

---

by: fhcec @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 23:23:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And we should care about the press photographers because??? n/t (5.00 / 1)

---

by: SolanoVoter @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 23:56:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Garamendi (8.00 / 1)

First, it's not name ID.  Campaign polls from several camps showed that virtually every voter who cast a ballot knew several of the top contenders and in the end made John Garamendi their first choice.

As far as moderate/liberal, those terms are often deceiving, but going back to his race against Tom Bradley for Governor, John Garamendi has always made the argument that it's important for Democrats to move away from specifically targeted government programs to those that serve a wider range of people.  That's generally why he has been identified as a moderate.  But whatever you think of his outlook, to call him more liberal than Debra Bowen, Bill Lockyer or John Chiang is overstating it.   But he certainly is a progressive Democrat.

I would also agree that he didn't win because he was any type of a moderate.  He won because in a race where most voters liked all of the candidates, he convinced them with help from Bill Clinton and Al Gore that he was the one who could do the best job in Washington of getting things done.  The real hero of the Garamendi effort is clearly his consultant Bill Cavala (with help from the other campaigns) who was able to keep the race completely off of issues that would divide voters and keep in on competency.  For example, I don't think any candidate ever answered where they stood on gay marriage even though that was clearly a major discussion in the news before the election.  

DeSaulnier also overplayed his hand on his attacks.  You are right that carpetbagging is almost never a successful line of attack, but sometimes its a factor and it's not often you have a local like DeSaulnier who ties up all of the leaders of the different political factions in an area, so I don't think it was terrible as part of an overall strategy, but you needed a lot more.

I think where they (and all of the other challengers) fell down on the job was that they overdid their attacks without really explaining in a believable way, why Garamendi wouldn't be good for the district.   As an example, you have John Garamendi who represented farm districts for many years being attacked for his contributions from big agribusiness without even an attempt to tie those contributions into votes in the legislature that wouldn't have been popular in an urban district.  People are not dumb and they don't respond to attacks they regard as unbelievable.  They knew enough about Garamendi to know he was a good Democrat.  They were never told why he might not be the best choice in a strong field.  On the other hand, Garamendi never talked about his opponents, just ignoring the attacks and focused both on what he had done and on how through his years in politics, he had the contacts to achieve those goals more easily than a typical freshman congressman.   There is already talk that Cavala may wind up running Jerry Brown's campaign and although I am not a big fan, with this effort coming shortly after Jackie Speiers win, he certainly would merit discussion in anyone's conversation about a possible consultant.

On the comments about how Garamendi should have run against Lungren, I will just repeat something I have said before.  If you look at the votes that are divided in Washington, they are almost as often split within parties as they are across party lines and most of the ones that split across party lines are for show as much as anything else with the results worked out in advance on both sides.  However Congressmembers do have a tremendous say in how this country is run and most of the members treasure that ability because they have things they want to accomplish.  I doubt their is a single member that will take on a tough election against the other party if he can avoid it because most have too many issues they care about and even if another Democrat is elected, the agenda is still going to be different enough that no one wants to give up the safest seat possible.  Not necessarily for selfish reasons, but because they have things they want to get done.  That is why grassroots activities are more important than larger races, because you can more easily see the real differences between candidates and get the change you really want, not just the media created promise to make a difference.

---

by: doughnut70 @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 14:31:11 PM CDT

couple things (0.00 / 0)

Bill Lockyer, who voted for Arnold in the recall, is no liberal.  I'll go by actions, and Garamendi has generally been on the right side.  

But not always.  I think the Prop. 2 issue, and agribusiness in general, was a HUGE missed opportunity for every challenger.  Prop. 2 passed with a huge amount of votes.  Garamendi opposed it.  If you wanted to attack and attack hard, that was the opening, and there were plenty of campaign donations to talk about there as well.

---

by: David Dayen @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 14:44:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Election redux. (0.00 / 0)

Bill Lockyer's record as a liberal is unquestioned.  If you remember, he opposed the recall (and raised money to fight it) but also admitted afterwards that he couldn't support Cruz Bustamante because he didn't think he was honest and he hoped in part because of Maria Shriver that Arnold might be different.  He was wrong and he has said that he should have just voted for one of the also-rans, but I think it also takes a lot (and I disagree with him on Bustamante) to openly say you didn't support a fellow member of your own party because you didn't believe he was honest.  If people would hold members of their own parties accountable, we wouldn't have situations like what we went through in Washington with William Jefferson keeping rolls of cash in an ice cooler.  But Lockyer's record speaks for itself and it is among the most liberal of any Democrat in Sacramento and whether you agree or disagree with that, it should certainly outweigh his vote in a special election.

As for agribusiness, there are all sorts of issues connected with pesticides and food prices that could have been used against Garamendi and for some reason weren't.  I don't think these issues weren't considered because they were talked about by groups as they decided who to support.   But for whatever reason (probably not having enough until the end for their own gotv) no one chose to make those the focal point of their campaign.

---

by: doughnut70 @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 17:33:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

really? (8.00 / 1)

the guy who told everyone during this budget crisis that people had to hurry up and cut everything so the banks would be happy?  That guy?

He's been horrible as Treasurer, a position which doesn't even hold much power so that's hard to even say.

---

by: David Dayen @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 20:51:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

and let us not forget (8.00 / 1)

when he called for higher public university fees/tuition, because it would lead students to better value their education or some such claptrap, when he attended the UC, tuition-free, back when the state valued things like education.

surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

---

by: wu ming @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 21:13:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Horrible as a Treasurer. Really???? (0.00 / 0)

We are talking about the same Bill Lockyer who saved California hundreds of millions of dollars by reforming the process by which we selected bond salesmen by making it competitive and using more firms instead of giving the job to the politically connected.   The guy who risked his political future by pushing for a change in the rating system for municipal bonds which although it only accomplished a few cosmetic changes (which still saved California almost a hundred million dollars by nonpartisan estimates)also started the ball rolling towards changing the system which virtually no other elected official would touch because they were afraid of the bond houses turning on them.  The guy who led the fight to get the state of California to invest in companies run by gay executives who had been avoided by previous treasurers who were afraid of the fallout and also gave tremendous amounts of his time to raise money to fight prop 8 (Several people connected with that campaign said he put more effort into it than any other elected official).  That's the scurrilous secret conservative you are talking about.  You have got to be kidding.

---

by: doughnut70 @ Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 01:46:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

this district didn't need Garamendi, it was already dem (0.00 / 0)

I disagree with your argument for why Garamendi should have chosen the safer district. All three of the other democrats in the race would have been solid democratic votes in DC.

However, with Garmamendi's name recognition he had a shot of knocking of Lungren, netting the Democrats one seat.

Let's be honest - Garamendi didn't run this race for the party,  he ran it for himself.

Look, I'm not opposing him and hopes he turns out to be good for the district.  

---

by: mo @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 17:00:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why he ran (0.00 / 0)

My point is that they all would.  You are arguing there wouldn't have been a major difference because they are all good democrats.  My point was that on issues that are close calls and could conceivably go either way, you will find as many with splits within both parties as you will issues that divide along Democratic/Republican lines.  These people run for office because they have views as to how the world should run.  Their divisions are not generally based on ideology, they are based on other things.  The ideological issues are by and large decided by which party gets more seats in an election cycle, but most of the bigger issues (things like whether military spending is put towards weapons that can be used more easily against terrorist groups or for bigger weapons that might create a more formidable protection base for our allies or where the stimulous money actually and those types of things) are what most congressman care about a lot.  John Garamendi's views on those were a lot different than Mark DeSaulniers and a lot of the people in Washington now.  That is why he wanted to be a Congressman just as it's why most members serve and why they think it's important that they get elected.  Most could make more money in the private sector and if everything was decided by the parties, they would work in the private sector for the cash.  Garamendi is a multi-millionaire.  He doesn't need the money, but he does have issues he cares about that he wants to fight for in Washington.  That's why he ran and it's no more or less selfish than why any of them run.  There is not a single member I can think of that intentionally took on a harder race to fight a battle for their party.  They all look for the easiest route, because they are trying to get to where they can push things they believe in.

---

by: doughnut70 @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 17:25:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The other thing is (8.00 / 1)

That CA-03 has at least one half-decent candidate.  Dr. Ameri Bera raised more in the last quarter than Garamendi did for his race, which was closer to happening.

People could keep kicking themselves about Garamendi not entering or work to elect Bera or another candidate against Lungren.  Bill Durston almost beat him and he didn't exactly have name ID.

---

by: David Dayen @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 20:49:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

patti! patti! patti! (0.00 / 0)

so why not start a draft patti garamendi campaign then? she's got the last name and the campaign experience. she gets to join her husband in dc and we claim a seat. it's a win/win for everyone...

i say all of this only half joking. ;-P

or john jr?  

---

by: nicholasmhatten @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 18:09:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My bet: Feinstein runs for govenor and Garamendi runs for Senate (0.00 / 0)

He is always running for the next office...I'll bet we will have another special election for CA-10.  Also, 1) I don't see Dianne letting Wittman become the first woman governor, 2) Diane is the only one with the gravitas/reputation who can redo the structural governance mess we find ourselves in.  It is a legacy thing which would cement her place in history.

---

by: TobyfromOrinda @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 14:58:01 PM CDT

if difi runs for governor (6.00 / 2)

it will not be because she wants to redo the structural governance mess, it will be to defend it against her own party.

i'd love to see garamendi in the senate, though.

surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

---

by: wu ming @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 17:34:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]