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:
Kos has an important post on 2010 marking a pivot for the grassroots and netroots from trying to take back the federal government from Republicans to reforming our Party and holding Democrats accountable.
If your local congresscritter is one of the bad apples, start organizing locally. Plug into existing networks or start your own. Begin looking for primary challengers. Do the groundwork. Don't expect help from the local party establishment, they'll close ranks. So tap into alternate infrastructures. Find allies in the progressive movement. If your local shitty Democrat is anti-union, approach the unions. They'd love to send this kind of message. If the Democrat is anti-choice, work with the women's groups. If the Democrat is anti-environment ... you get the idea. If you have access to professional networks and money, start organizing those.
Of course, this takes more than just bitching about your frustrations on a blog, damning a whole party for the actions of a minority more scared of Mr. 28% than of protecting the Constitution they swore to protect. This takes hard work. But now is the time to start.
Indeed. The activists that meet campaigning this fall will form the core of next cycle's primary efforts. Kos suggests looking at The Capitulation Caucus with emphasis on those who are also Blue Dogs. In California, that means:
Joe Baca, Dennis Cardoza, Jim Costa, Jane Harman, and Adam Schiff
Kos also praises Loretta Sanchez as one of only four Blue Dogs who didn't cave on defending the Constitution from retroactive immunity. And remember, Ellen Tauscher was a member of the Blue Dogs until she saw the successful primarying of Joe Lieberman and occupies a district designed for a challenge from the left (and west).
Woohoo! Jerry did it! Jerry McNerney has managed to become the most un-progressive Democrat of the entire California congressional delegation. For those keeping score at home, Jerry's 82.45 was about a half point lower than the next CA Dem, Jim Costa, that progressive stalwart, at 82.97. And for all the talk of Harman changing her ways, she's still worse than even Joe Baca, almost 7 points worse from a very safe Dem seat.
For all of you CA-45 fans, "moderate" Mary Bono came in with a stellar 4.42 Chips are Down score. So, for all the bluster of the SCHIP vote, she's still dancing the same jig as the rest of her party.
On thing must be said, the Speaker has done an excellent job at preserving unity amongst the caucus. Whether that means she's being too incremental and/or ineffective, or just laying down the law is the big question. The reason her approval rating, and the Congress in general, is down has a whole lot to do with the fact that little has changed on the Iraq front. So, would it be better to have a speaker who is more willing to take risks? Perhaps, but the impediment of the president always lingers over her head, veto pen in hand. So, whether the unity is really there, is an open question. Full data over the flip.
(I was working on a similar post, but I'll still post my own, with all CA data and some other miscellany. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
The problem with most scorecards is that they are written by lobbyists concerned with always getting the votes of potential supporters. Thus, there is an equal weighting while in the real world not all votes are equal. In fact, regardless of everything else, some votes are dealbreakers and when they show up on scorecards as one of 12 votes or something, it looks silly. However, Progressive Punch has a new "when the chips are down" scorecard. After the flip is the ratings of CA's congressional delegation, in descending order.
I'm guessing that at tonight's Calitics' Actblue Celebrations there will be a lot of discussion about the votes to condemn MoveOn. The CA delegation split 50-50 in the senate and 16 yea and 17 nay in the house -- wedged successfully by the GOP in half. After the flip is the scorecard.
Yesterday, I saw this in The Register. And as soon as I saw this, I was stopped in my tracks.
Roughly 2.5 million low-income adults in California can't afford to adequately feed their families, resulting in health problems and household stress, according to a UCLA report released this week.
The report measures food insecurity, which can range from reduced quality or variety of diet to skipping meals because of costs. In 2005, 30 percent of low-income adults statewide reported choosing between food and other basic needs, according to data from the California Health Interview Study. Among them, 9 percent experienced a disruption in eating habits or skipped meals. The study did not include the homeless.
In Orange County, the UCLA report says an estimated 190,000 low-income adults struggle to buy food, and about 36,000 people sometimes go hungry. The numbers don't include children.
Oh my goodness! 2.5 million people in California can't afford to feed their families? And 190,000 of them are in "wealthy" Orange County? 145,000 of them in San Bernardino County? 740,000 of them in LA County? What's happening to these people who can't afford to eat? Why is this happening? And what can we do to solve this problem?
Last week I ran down the unused money from last year's unopposed and underopposed California members of Congress. It was a long list. 22 districts held by Democrats fielded no Republican challenger who met a very low bar of fundraising legitimacy. Really not impressive, but really not surprising either. So what about the flipside? How did Democrats do in going after Republicans?
Democrats left only one California seat unopposed, and failed to raise money in one other. Of the 21 Republican-held seats, only 4 qualified as as unopposed or underopposed (challenger raising less than $25,000). It suggests two things to me. One, Democrats are already doing a pretty good job of funding candidates in red districts (although there's still room to improve of course), and two, that strong funding only goes so far given the way these districts are drawn. So as I would be cautioning anyways, fundraising is only one piece of the puzzle. It still takes the right candidate in the right context.
Leading up to the election last November, Chris Bowers initiated the Use It or Lose It project, urging unopposed members of Congress to contribute their money to the DCCC in support of other competitive races. In addition, I found 64 more districts with token opposition (Republican had raised less than $10,000 total). California's districts, safely drawn as many of them are, were well represented on these two lists, and while many of California's Democrats were very supportive, not all of them were. Our representatives have a responsibility to support the party as a whole whenever possible, and sitting on piles of cash is both a waste and a betrayal of good faith. Here's a look at how the delegation performed so that we can start applying pressure where necessary.
Well, my mother always told me when you can't say anything nice, you know. Anyway, it appears that Joe Baca has survived an attempted coup at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Rep. Joe Baca came out on top of a recent flap over his chairmanship of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, earning a vote of confidence from the group at a special meeting Tuesday.
A splinter group of the all-Democratic caucus challenged his chairmanship and questioned his leadership and decorum, particularly when it comes to women. (S.B. Sun 3/7/07)
You know, as atdleft pointed out, perhaps the OC Weekly article was unduly hard on Loretta Sanchez. I mean after all, there are several California Congress members that are closer to the Republicans than her. How do I know? I went to Progressive Punch (House Scores) In fact, one of those with a less progressive than Loretta is Joe Baca. (Baca also scores lower on the National Journal rankings)
Did you know that Joe Baca supports drilling in ANWR? I didn't, but then I looked up his progressive punch score, and I saw that Mr. Baca has a very low environmental score (63). I drilled down and found out that he votes with the gas guzzlers every time ANWR comes up for a vote. Loretta Sanchez? She has voted consistently against drilling in ANWR. Good work, Loretta. And Loretta has managed to out-progressive Baca despite the fact that Baca's district (CA-43) has a Cook Score of D+13 compared to CA-47's score of D+5.
On the question of why there isn't a strong push to primary Baca? Well, he reaches out to the grassroots.
Gil Navarro, a Democratic activist in the Inland Empire, said local Latinos remain strongly behind Baca. What other congressmen, Navarro asked, would regularly attend a meeting of Rialto Democrats, as Baca still does?
