Picking up on a diary from 2006 about tracking competitive districts, I continued the tracking for the 2008 and 2010 elections. With the new district data, I can start the "Outlook" series for 2012.
In 2008 I tried a "Partisan Factor" (PF), inspired by a comment in the aforementioned diary, in which I averaged the margins in registration, 2002-Gov., 2004-Pres., 2004-Sen., and 2006-Sen. In 2010 I used just the registration and the 2008 presidential numbers. For 2012 I will try a new "Partisan Factor" using the registration margin, 2008-Pres., 2010-Sen., and 2010-Gov, with different weights.
Also, for the 2008 and 2010 races, the numbers represent the difference between the parties given their share of the 2-party vote. For example, in CA-03, Obama won 56.3-43.7, Fiorina won 51-49, and Brown won 53.8-46.2.
With the California primaries only days away, I decided to make a list of races worth watching this coming Super Tuesday. Cross-posted at Swing State Project and Democracy for California.
U.S. Senate (R) - Fiorina seems to have consolidated the "outsider" vote, seeing as she is the only one of the three that has not held elected office and it seems that being an outsider will get one far in the Republican primary (though not so much in a California general election).
Governor (R) - Exactly as I predicted, this race has unfolded to be 2006 in reverse. Whoever wins the GOP primary here will be so radioactive that many Republican voters likely will cross over to vote for Jerry Brown, like many Democratic voters did for Arnold last time. If Jerry Brown pulls similar numbers among Republicans that Arnold did among Democrats, then Brown is likely gonna win big. And I'm unsure about how indies will go, so I just went with an estimate similar to the 2006 numbers.
Lt. Governor (D) - This race will be very interesting: a classic NorCal/SoCal matchup, between Gavin Newsom and Janice Hahn.
Lt. Governor (R) - Newly-appointed incumbent Abel Maldonado will face a tough primary with more conservative State Senator Sam Aanestad. Given that moderates have fared pretty poorly in California elections of late, I give Aanestad the edge.
Sec. of State (R) - Any race with the Birther Queen just has to be a race to watch, more so for the comedy value, though I think most Republicans don't buy her BS, so I see Dunn getting the nomination. No matter who wins, Debra Bowen is likely a cinch for a second term.
Attorney General (D) - Very crowded primary here, with 3 term-limited Assemblymen, Torrico, Nava, and Lieu; S.F. District Attorney Kamala Harris; Facebook attorney Chris Kelly; and disgraced ex-L.A. city attorney Delgadillo, though the race seems to have narrowed to just Harris and Kelly. From what I have heard of Kelly, I am rooting for Harris.
Controller (R) - Not much drama here, but I am hoping for Tony Strickland to win so he can lose to John Chiang even worse than in 2006. Unfortunately, he is not up for reelection to the State Senate until 2012, so if he wins the nomination but loses the general, he will still be in the senate (hopefully until 2012).
Insurance Commissioner (D) - Here we have two strong candidates in term-limited assemblymen Hector De La Torre and Dave Jones. I have no preference in this race, but since Jones has more money and establishment backing, I think he'll win the nod.
CA-11 (R) - Will David Harmer, who lost by only 10% in the more Democratic CA-10 in the special election (albeit with lower turnout) be able to make it past the primary against Tony Amador and be more competitive in the general?
CA-19 (D) - I am pulling for Loraine Goodwin here. Any campaign based on health care reform is a big winner in Democratic primaries and in general elections in most parts of the state. Not sure what the HCR numbers are in this neck of the woods.
CA-19 (R) - I think I will root for Denham here, as he has won in more Democratic turf, so he is relatively saner. (And Denham is term-limited, so CA-19 run or no CA-19 run, we have a great shot at winning SD-12.) Pombo shouldn't really be of much concern, as he has placed a distant third in the recent primary poll.
CA-26 (R) - My hometown district, where Dreier faces a primary challenge from businessman Mark Butler. While I consider Dreier to be the heavy favorite, this primary challenge could further drain his campaign coffers. If he wins the primary, Dreier has the advantage of incumbency and a year more favorable to his party (though anti-Obama sentiment is much weaker in California than elsewhere). A disadvantage Dreier has is depleted campaign coffers, from spending like crazy to win only 52% against Warner in 2008 and possibly from this primary challenge.
CA-33 (D) - Former Assembly speaker Karen Bass is likely the heavy favorite, and I hope she wins.
CA-36 (D) - Harman/Winograd redux, only with more fireworks this time around.
CA-42 (R) - Even though Gary Miller's voting record is unabashedly conservative, he is still getting teabagged by three other Republicans. Count on yet another incumbent scoring a subpar primary performance.
CA-45 (R) - Mary Bono Mack has drawn teabag primary opposition from Clayton Thibodeau for her vote for cap-and-trade. She also voted against repealing DADT in spite of her district having the highest concentration of gays of any Republican-held district, possibly out of fear of getting teabagged. If Thibodeau upsets Bono Mack, this Obama-voting R+3 district could be put into play.
CA-47 (R) - Will Tan and Van split the Vietnamese vote, allowing Kathy Smith to sneak through?
CA-50 (D) - I like Busby, but I think her time has passed, if she couldn't beat Bilbray in the far more Democratic-favored 2006. Attorney Tracy Emblem seems to have most of the grassroots support.
AD-05 (R) - In this open, evenly-divided suburban Sacramento seat, the Tea Party has gotten into another Republican primary, backing Craig DeLuz against party-backed Prop 8 backer Andy Pugno. I am rooting for DeLuz to win the primary so in one election we defeat a Prop H8er and increase our chances of winning this district too.
AD-30 (D) - The Parra/Florez feud continues, with Nicole's dad Pete Parra facing off against Dean's mom Fran Florez, who lost to Danny Gilmore, who didn't like being an Assemblyman and that's why he's not running, which I at first found surprising.
AD-36 (D) - Linda Jones, who ran here in 2008, faces primary opposition from real estate broker Maggie Campbell and police officer Shawntrice Watkins. This time I am rooting for Watkins, because this Antelope Valley-centric district is very law-and-order, being the home of the Runners (Sharon and George, of "Jessica's Law" fame), and incumbent Steve Knight also having been a police officer before being elected to the Assembly. Watkins could cut into Knight's law-and-order advantage. Plus Watkins' endorsement from Equality California can't hurt either.
AD-68 (D) and (R) - I am really looking forward to an all-Vietnamese matchup here. Will be interesting to gauge the Vietnamese vote if it's Phu Nguyen (D) vs. Long Pham (R).
And what is a California election without some ballot measures? Five are on the ballot this time.
Prop 13: Tax break to property owners for making seismic retrofits. I like seeing tax breaks used as incentives for good causes. Vote YES!
Prop 14: Top two votegetters in the primary would go on to the general election, limiting voter choices. Vote NO!
Prop 15: Repeals ban on public financing and raises fees on lobbyists to fund a public financing system for SecState election beginning in 2014. Vote YES!
Prop 16: PG&E power grab that requires a 2/3 vote to create public power districts or allow local governments to purchase their own renewable power. Vote NO!
Prop 17: Weakens consumer protections and allow car insurance companies to charge much more for late payments. Vote NO!
(More great information - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
While the range of competitive House districts has narrowed considerably, I am still including all 8 Obama-Republican districts to watch their trends. I also added state legislative seats that are open this year in which the incumbent is not term-limited.
With the filing deadline passed, we are beginning to see how the fields are shaping up for the 2010 elections in California. While the range of competitive House districts has narrowed considerably, I am still including all 8 Obama-Republican districts to watch their trends.
Taking into account some suggestions and comments, I made some changes to my previous attempt at redistricting California. I conceded an additional 2 seats to the GOP, which concomitantly makes a number of other seats more strongly Democratic. The additional 2 safe GOP seats are CA-4 and CA-48. Here's what version 2 looks like, overall:
I decided to try my hand at redistricting California's Congressional districts for 2010-2012, using Dave's Redistricting App. After playing around with it a bit, here's what the map I came up with looks like overall:
Here's the 2008 Obama/McCain vote in California, on the precinct level:
That would seem to be at least a debatable question, based on a recent article in The Hill:
Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) has reimbursed himself for more than $200,000 out of his congressional campaign this decade without saying why.
Dreier's campaign reimbursements to himself don't appear to provide as much detail as the Federal Election Commission (FEC) requires, and watchdog groups say he should elaborate on them.
A spokeswoman for Dreier said the campaign has every indication that it's in compliance.
According to a review of Dreier's FEC reports since 2000, his campaign has listed a total of about $200,000 worth of expenditures for the purpose of "candidate reimbursement." But the forms don't say, as the FEC appears to instruct, what Dreier had to reimburse himself for.
At issue here is the fact that Congressman Dreier has not given any details whatsoever on exactly what the supposed reimbursements were for. The reports have only listed the expenditures--nearly all of which are large enough to trigger reporting requirement thresholds--as "candidate reimbursement."
Are Dreier's campaign statements in violation of the law? I must admit that they are apparently not--yet. The FEC decides who lives and who dies in this world, and unless the FEC asks for more information and the campaign is unable or unwilling to provide it, then apparently no law has been violated:
"If the FEC does not ask for more information, the committee may presume that the FEC is comfortable with the information provided," Berke said.
Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, said candidates have a responsibility, when dealing with reimbursing themselves, to attain a higher level of transparency.
"If there's nothing below board here, then that should be very clear and evident from his campaign finance report, and if it's not, then his constituents should demand that he provide more," Levinthal said.
So basically, we're talking about a candidate who is reimbursing himself personally for an average of over $20,000 a year this decade who is not providing the public with any disclosure whatsoever as to whether these expenditures are in any way justified. The question from here is whether the FEC is actually going to investigate to see if these are actual legitimate reimbursements. Anyone willing to take bets?
Brian is wrong, that does not take care of the horse race for the day! Today is the deadline for Congressional incumbents and challengers to declare their fundraising totals for the second quarter of 2009, and some numbers on the California candidates jump out. If I write "incomplete," that's because their FEC report hasn't popped up yet. I'll fill in when they become available:
We'll start with the special election in CA-10:
John Garamendi: $300,000 raised, $260,000 CoH, $54,000 debt
Mark DeSaulnier: incomplete $212,000 raised, $136,000 CoH, $77,000 debt
Joan Buchanan: incomplete $64,000 raised, $179,000 CoH, $308,000 debt
Anthony Woods: $105,000 raised, $65,000 CoH
Adriel Hampton: incomplete $22,500 raised, $269.77 CoH, $346.82 debt
Waiting on more info on this one. John Garamendi's number came from 350 people, almost $1,000 a head. That suggests no grassroots fundraising base. Anthony Woods had over twice as many donors, who could be tapped again. UPDATE: OK, this is interesting. Joan Buchanan raised a fairly paltry amount considering the primary is in six weeks, but she took out a $250,000 loan and has a significant amount of debt. She seems to be blowing through operating expenses too. Likewise, Mark DeSaulnier, who raised a decent amount, has over half of his cash on hand in debt. And I missed that John Garamendi has $50,000 in debt as well. Suddenly, Anthony Woods has more debt-free cash on hand than anyone in the field but Garamendi.
CA-03:
Gary Davis: $34,000 raised, $30,000 CoH
Dr. Amerish Bera: $288,000 raised, $286,000 CoH
Dan Lungren (inc.): incomplete $233,000 raised, $322,000 CoH
Bill Slaton: $113,000 raised, $224,000 CoH, $116,000 debt
That is an eye-popping number for Amerish Bera, and lest you see it as a doctor self-funding, only $4,800 came from the candidate. I was shocked by that total. We'll see what Dan Lungren ends up raising later today, but it's entirely possible that Bera will have MORE cash on hand than the incumbent (Lungren only had $121,000 on hand at the end of April, with $12,000 in debts). Wow. UPDATE So Bera outraised Lungren, but he ekes out a cash on hand lead. As an incumbent, however, that's a weak performance. UPDATE II: Bill Slaton claimed to some that he raised $227,000 in three weeks, but half of that comes in the form of a personal loan to the campaign. His actual cash on hand is much less than Bera. But $113,000 in three weeks isn't bad.
CA-45:
Steve Pougnet: $201,000 raised, $203,000 CoH
Mary Bono Mack (inc): $166,000 raised, $448,000 CoH
Steve Pougnet outraised the incumbent in Q2, which is quite impressive. Mary Bono Mack starts out with a bigger war chest, so he has some work to do, but this is an excellent start, and I think Pougnet has a natural fundraising base that will only expand once his story gets out.
CA-44:
Bill Hedrick: $65,000 raised, $66,000 CoH
Ken Calvert (inc.): incomplete $407,000 raised, $384,000 CoH
Certainly an improvement over the first quarter for Bill Hedrick, and all of the money came from Southern California, which means he has a solid fundraising and volunteer base locally. He needs to spread that out nationally to maximize his potential in this winnable race.
Believe it or not, Dreier actually had a much bigger war chest last cycle. Russ Warner needs to do better to be competitive, but he's actually in a slightly better position than two years ago.
This was a tough quarter for Krom, with the tragic death of her son taking up a lot of time in the final weeks. Campbell ramped up his fundraising a bit after Krom beat him in the last quarter.
A solid quarter of fundraising for Francine Busby, notwithstanding that police action at one of her fundraisers while guests were pepper sprayed. UPDATE: Brian Bilbray had a good quarter.
The field is still getting together in this race, but I wanted to see Elton Gallegly's fundraising output, which is somewhat pathetic. He does have enough of a war chest that he doesn't necessarily need to get moving on that yet, however.
UPDATE the last: Swing State Project has a full roundup with a number of other interesting tidbits.
• In CA-04, Tom McClintock raised a bundle - $341,000 - but he still has over $100,000 in outstanding debt and only $245,000 CoH. Some fiscal conservative.
• In CA-10, one Republican is showing financial viability, David Harmer, with a $175,000 haul (but that's based on the first six months, not just the quarter). He has $144,000 CoH and $17,000 in outstanding debt. And his ideological viability in that district is, shall we say, suspect, though he is likely to reach a runoff.
• In CA-11, which I think is safe, Jerry McNerney raised $288,000 and has $519,000 cash on hand. One of his potential opponents, Brad Goehring, would seem to have a good financial position with $259,000 CoH, but he only raised $14,000 for the quarter and has $250,000 in debt due to a massive loan. The same with Jon Del Arroz, who guaranteed a huge loan for himself and has as much in debt as he does in cash on hand. These guys are wasting money, in my opinion.
• I added Ken Calvert's numbers in CA-44. Clearly the NRCC is protecting him by bolstering his fundraising.
• CA-47 is on the fringe of being competitive, but Van Tran had a good quarter, beating Loretta Sanchez (barely) in fundraising:
We're setting a course for the center of the sun in the state budget process right now, but today is also the last day of the second quarter, an important day for Congressional candidates, who must file fundraising reports based on close of business today. So this is as good a time as any to take a look at the Congressional races and where we stand at this point. I have not yet done similar roundups for 2010 statewide offices or legislative races, but plan to do so in the near future. If you find any of these challenges attractive, I urge you to pass a few bucks along to the candidate of your choice. This quarter will help or hurt the candidacies in terms of their perception of viability.
A word on the notations. PVI refers to the Cook Political Report's Partisan Voting Index. I've also included the Presidential performance from last year and the particular Congressional performance, where applicable. That information is available for the whole nation at this link. Open Congress also has a good Wiki on all the seats involved.
I've been saving the changes in registration differences in the competitive districts that I track in my regular registration number updates. Here I will show the changes in registration going from the last numbers before the 2008 election to the latest numbers released a few days ago. Here they are in tabulated form. And for the congressional districts, in addition to the 8 Obama-Republican districts, I tossed in CA-04, because the House race there was very close in spite of the considerable Republican advantage in registration and the presidential race, and CA-46, the district of McCain's closest win of the 11 McCain districts and the only one that he won with less than 50%.
(More good stuff. Thanks! - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
With the release of the new registration numbers, and a couple of special elections just around the corner, I now have updates for the open and/or competitive State Senate and State Assembly districts, as well as the eight Obama-Republican districts. The Secretary of State's website has the presidential results by district, so I am including the presidential results in each district.
Breaking news: We now have a (albeit slight) registration advantage in AD-10!
And an edit: I am including CA-04 in the list because of McClintock's less-than-1% win, even though the presidential race and registration gap are not particularly close.
The banksters still have a powerful sway over members of Congress. Yesterday, they stopped cramdown in the Senate, which would have allowed bankruptcy judges to treat primary residences the same way as yachts and vacation homes in a bankruptcy. And there was much rejoicing.
On the same day, the House bucked the trend, passing the Credit Cardholder's Bill of Rights by a wide, bipartisan margin.
In 2008, credit card issuers imposed $19 billion in penalty fees on families with credit cards and this year, card companies will break all records for late fees, over-limit charges, and other penalties, pulling in more than $20.5 billion. Credit-card debt in the U.S. has reached a record high of nearly $1 trillion - and almost half of American families currently carry a balance, and for those families the average balance was $7,300. One-fifth of those carrying credit-card debt pay an interest rate above 20 percent [...]
The Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act passed today levels the playing field between card issuers and cardholders by applying common-sense regulations that would ban retroactive interest rate hikes on existing balances, double-cycle billing, and due-date gimmicks. It would also increase the advance notice of impending rate hikes, giving cardholders the information they need and rights to make decisions about their financial lives. Our economic recovery depends on a shared prosperity - and we must put an end to these abusive practices that continue to drive so many Americans deeper and deeper into debt.
I'm glad this ends double-cycle billing, where cardholders pay interest on debt that they've already paid off, and forces credit card companies to allocate payment to the debt with the highest interest rate. But overall, these are very modest protections that simply prohibit the credit card companies from ripping off the American people. And 105 Republicans agreed yesterday. But among those who didn't we're the usual suspects of arch-conservative Yacht Party wingers like Tom McClintock, joined by supposed "moderate" David Dreier.
Of course, as Dick Durbin noted yesterday, the bankers who own the Senate will return to try and ditch this bill. They've killed the same legislation before, and Harry Reid didn't exactly sound confident this time around. But I want to focus on Dreier and McClintock, both of whom and their pals in the GOP caucus have been well and truly bought by banking interests in exchange for votes like this.
Ed Royce (CA-40- $2,506,414)
David Dreier (CA-26- $2,118,538)
Gary Miller (CA-42- $765,988)
Devin Nunes (CA-21- $499,235)
Kevin McCarthy (CA-22- $461,138)
Tom McClintock (CA-04- $353,294)
Here's what newly-announced candidate Russ Warner had to say about this yesterday:
Dreier will once again be forced to face a top rate challenge in 2010, Russ Warner, who has every intention of making sure voters from Rancho Cucamonga, Upland, and Claremont to San Dimas, Monrovia, Sierra Madre, San Marino and La Crescenta know that Dreier is strictly a representative of the special interests that have done such grievous damage to the state's economy and to the financial well-being to his own constituents. "Time and time again," Russ told us this morning after going over the vote yesterday, "David Dreier proves the interests of his corporate donors take precedent over the people he was elected to serve. Dreier's never felt the pressure of supporting a family and has lived off the taxpayer dime for nearly three decades, so its not surprising he has no idea how harmful these predatory credit card companies are."
We're going to have to fight in the Senate to make sure this passes. But this vote should not be forgotten next year. Everyone has felt the pinch from credit card usurers, and so votes like this are signatures, marks of where you stand. Hopefully Warner and whoever challenges these other Republicans will use it.
In 2007-08, I wrote a monthly series of House race roundups here in California, taking a look at the races with the highest potential to change members of Congress. This cycle, there are promises from the national Democrats that they will pay attention to a number of seats in California held by Republicans, and with the statewide races at the top of the ticket looking favorable for Democrats, and Republican registration collapsing throughout the state, in theory we should see some more movement. But many of these elements were true the past two cycles, amounting to little. Because it's a statewide officer election year, I will also do a statewide races roundup at a later time. But for now, let's take a look at the seats most likely to flip in 2010, starting with seats currently held by Democrats, few of which are in play. In addition to those "threatened" by Republicans, I'm including two seats where I've heard rumblings about primary challenges to incumbents.
A word on the notations. PVI refers to the Cook Political Report's Partisan Voting Index. I've also included the Presidential performance from last year and the particular Congressional performance, where applicable. That information is available for the whole nation at this link.
(Another great report on these numbers. Thanks! - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
With the release of the new registration numbers, I now have updates for the open and/or competitive State Senate and State Assembly districts. The Secretary of State's website has the presidential results by district, so I am including the presidential results in each districts.
I am also tacking on the eight districts that are our top targets in 2010: CA-03, CA-24, CA-25, CA-26, CA-44, CA-45, CA-48, and CA-50.
(Sorry, guys, I wrote this one, as well as any "Open Thread" comment. I forget to log out sometimes...
- promoted by David Dayen)
State Democrats are buzzing about this weekend's Carla Marinucci article entitled "California Dems target 8 GOP districts", which claims that Republican voter registration is dropping fast, providing a major opportunity to pick up Congressional seats in 2010.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has targeted 35 districts across the country represented by Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives - including eight in California - that were won by Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, said Jennifer Crider, the committee spokeswoman.
The Democrats plan increased appeals to voters in those areas and will make aggressive efforts to recruit Democratic candidates to run against the Republican incumbents, she said [...]
The vulnerable California districts with Republican representatives that were won by Obama are those of Reps. Dan Lungren of Gold River (Sacramento County), Mary Bono-Mack of Palm Springs, David Dreier of San Dimas (Los Angeles County), Elton Gallegly of Thousand Oaks (Ventura County), Brian Bilbray of Solana Beach (San Diego County), John Campbell of Newport Beach (Orange County), Ken Calvert of Riverside and Howard "Buck" McKeon of Santa Clarita (Los Angeles County), the committee says.
It would be nice if I thought any of this would work. First of all, the registration changes didn't just spring up in December 2008. These trends have been occurring for some time, and were all present during the last election. Despite this, we had a candidate in CA-25 (McKeon) who spent less than $10,000 or her entire campaign. The candidate in CA-24 (Gallegly) won her primary because of her ballot designation and without spending any significant money. (By the way, CA-25 is now the seat held by the GOP with the closest registration gap between Republicans and Democrats in the whole state. Did you know that?) In the races where we managed to compete, our candidates significantly underperformed the top of the ticket, and in most cases underperformed Barbara Boxer's performance in 2004, when a less dominant John Kerry was at the top of the ticket.
I don't think there are that many other people who have followed California congressional races closer than I have, and I have to say that we simply suck at elections in these kinds of races out here in California. The state party is dysfunctional at best and downright criminal at worst. Put it this way: we had the same chance to win all these seats in 2008. Nate Silver, making a separate point, provides a list of the 30 districts where Obama won between 50 and 52 percent of the vote. As you'll see, we did extremely well in those seats, except for in California.
Barack Obama won 51 percent of the vote in NY-20 on November 4th. How did congressional candidates perform in other districts where he received between, say, 50 and 52 percent of the vote? Again, we see essentially an even split; Republicans won 16 of 30 such districts and Democrats won 14:
Won by Republicans (16): CA-24, CA-25, CA-26, CA-44, CA-45, CA-50, FL-10, FL-18, MI-4, MN-3, NE-2, NJ-7, NY-23, VA-4, WI-1, WI-6
Won by Democrats (14): FL-22, KS-3, MI-1, MI-7, MN-1, NC-2, NJ-3, NY-1, NY-19, NY-20*, NY-24, TX-23, VA-2, WA-3
Winning percentage in these seats in states other than CA: 58.3%
Winning percentage in CA: 0.0%
By the way, the other two districts not mentioned above that are now being "targeted"? CA-03 (Lungren) was 49-49 Obama, and CA-48 (Campbell) was also 49-49 Obama. Heck, even CA-46 was only 50-48 McCain. Obama got 46% in CA-19 (Radanovich), where there was no Democratic candidate, and 47% in CA-40 (Royce).
Some would argue that, properly resourced, these seats would suddenly become very winnable. I give you CA-50, where Nick Leibham consistently beat Brian Bilbray in fundraising and maxed out at the 45% ceiling on Democrats in that district.
CA-44 is somewhat winnable because Bill Hedrick came close in '08 and is running again. We lost our best candidate in CA-03, Bill Durston, and everywhere else, I'm just extremely dubious, because the state party has systematically psyched itself out of winning these seats (thanks to the Faustian bargain of incumbency-protected gerrymandering designed by... imminent state party chair John Burton), and the commitment at the national level has been known to wane. We've left dozens of winnable elections on the table the past two cycles, dramatically underperforming the nation. A little DCCC money won't change that.
There's so much going on in this bounty of close races, it's hard to follow it all as just lil' ol' me and without a full-time staff. But clearly, California is terribly broken because there are no competitive seats and so we must change the redistricting process and re-gerrymander competitiveness into them. Right? On the flip, I offer an update on every seat that's even reasonably close. I'll get to the Assembly and Senate races later today or tomorrow.
CA-11, CA-04, CA-03, CA-46, CA-50 and much more on the flip! Including the infamous "phone sex robocall"... no, I'm not kidding.
Republican campaigns all over are starting to tank as Election Day approaches. California, long considered the land of "safe seats" because of the 2000 redistricting plan that basically secured the status quo for both parties, is no exception. The news is not good for incumbent Republicans.
We all know David Dreier is a Bush rubber stamp who has voted with George W. Bush 93.6% of the time. But what about that other 6.4%? We don't talk about it much because, well, there isn't that much to talk about.
But credit where credit is due, there is one important issue where Dreier has differed from Bush: The Federal Marriage Amendment.
The FMA, if passed (and ratified), would have limited marriage nationwide to between a man and a woman and it would have prevented courts from granting same sex couples certain rights that married couples enjoy. When it came up for a vote in 2004 and 2006, Dreier voted against it both times and the reasoning he gave for opposing it was simple.
He explained his opposition to the amendment by stating that he felt the Constitution was not the appropriate tool for restricting rights.
Well, now we have a similar initiative on the ballot in California in the form of Proposition 8, except this time, if Prop 8 passes, it wouldn't just amend the California constitution to restrict rights, it would amend the California constitution to eliminate the rights that people are exercising every day.
Yet David Dreier has been silent...and his silence is deafening.
