I get it that deep red states like Utah elect representatives who think child labor laws are unconstitutional. Even to somebody without a law degree, they would seem to fit quite nicely under either the clause about interstate commerce or the part that gives Congress the right to "promote the general welfare." But, still, what I don't expect is for California--where we elected a statewide slate of Democrats--to send people like Darrell Issa and Jeff Denham to D.C.
The press is already calling Issa "The Grand Inquisitor" because of his pledge to investigate everything and everybody. And they're poking fun at his multiple brushes with the law. It makes us look like idiots for sending a shady character like that to Congress.
But Jeff Denham is perhaps more of a surprise. He was considered a moderate during his stint in the California Assembly. He isn't any more. I guess there is no such thing as a moderate Republican officeholder anymore. Certainly not Jeff Denham.
I just read a story on Yahoo! News about Speaker Pelosi's last press conference. The story itself was pretty spare, but there were more than 6,000 comments. I didn't read them all. I couldn't. I found them too shocking. The level of information was so abysmal. The personal invective was so crude. And the spelling was so bad. It was a real eye-opener.
I have no idea why so many people are so fixated on whether or not Nancy Pelosi has had plastic surgery. But it was a frequent topic. Having seen the Speaker in strong sunlight, I certainly saw no evidence of it.
Calling her a witch and a bitch was also popular. Again, I'm sure none of these people have ever met Ms. Pelosi. I found her perfectly pleasant the time I did.
Over a month and a half after Meg Whitman went down in flames, losing to Jerry Brown by 13 points, recriminations are still flying among California Republicans about the embarrassing loss. George Skelton's column today uses an interview with Rob Stutzman, a Senior Advisor to Meg Whitman and a former communications director for Arnold Schwarzenegger, to point out that a big factor in Whitman's defeat was her alienation of the Latino vote:
But the veteran Republican strategist is blaming the mini-landslide size of Whitman's loss on some ugly dust-ups over illegal immigration that alienated Latinos from the GOP....
"Republicans need to understand that they live in suburbs with second-generation Mexican American neighbors whose parents came here and worked in agriculture and the service industries and are very proud" of their families' success, Stutzman says.
"They sit around at cocktail parties and they listen on talk shows and hear their parents referred to as 'illegals.' And we wonder why these people don't want to register as Republicans."
Stutzman lamented to Skelton the influence of "talk shows" - i.e. John and Ken - on Republicans. But Stutzman could and should go further. The problem, as we've explained several times here at Calitics, is that the California Republican base hates Latinos, does not accept the fact that there are almost as many Latinos as whites in California, and sees any effort to treat Latinos as fully equal and desirable members of our state's society as being some kind of sellout.
Because of this hatred of Latinos, it's now impossible for a Republican to win the party nomination (which requires appeasing that hatred) as well as the general election (which requires winning Latino votes). Republican statewide candidates are therefore stuck between pleasing their base or winning Latino votes. Either way, they lose.
So Stutzman is absolutely right to point out the dilemma and explain to Republicans that their candidates cannot win until the anti-Latino sentiment is abandoned. But that's not likely to happen anytime soon; the base clings to its hatreds with a tight grip. And instead of reacting to what Stutzman said, the right-wing base prefers to shoot the messenger, if Debra Saunders' response is any indication:
Let's start with the biggest factor in Whitman's Titanic disaster of a campaign -- the overpaid political class coronated her because of her money, even though they had no reason to believe that she would be a good candidate or a great governor....
I talked to Stutzman who told me it would be a misreading of his conversation with Skelton to conclude that he was blaming Whitman's loss on the GOP's Latino vote deficit. Fair enough. And I agree that the party can do a better job shunning activists who speak as if all immigrants should be presumed illegal -- which oddly was the Democratic argument during the Diaz controversy.
That said, let's start with the mistake that spawned all other mistakes. The GOP's permanent political class went for the money.
Saunders isn't being serious here. Whitman had everything she needed to be a formidable candidate. Democrats and progressives spent most of 2010 scared to death that she would roll right over Jerry Brown. But she didn't. And her need to appease her anti-Latino base played a big role in it.
Saunders also deliberately understates the problem. It isn't a matter of "shunning activists" - it's a matter of the California Republican base as a whole sharing these anti-Latino beliefs. If that base were shunned, if the activists were shunned, then they'd just go to another Republican candidate who would satisfy their desire to hate on Latinos. It's exactly the move Steve Poizner attempted this spring in the primary, which forced Whitman to play up her own anti-Latino sentiments.
So the problem is dire, and it's one major reason why the California Republican Party is a dying political party, destined to be marginalized as California politics is being realigned as a battle between progressives and corporate elitists.
But Democrats should not yet assume the Latino vote is theirs. As with any voting bloc, Latinos expect to hold positions of power, expect their needs to be addressed, and expect that politicians they support will deliver on their promises. California Democrats in Congress backed the DREAM Act, and it was Senate Democrats from other states who sabotaged its passage. Still, it's a reminder that California Democrats don't have a lock on the Latino vote, and need to work hard to ensure that Latinos are empowered and enriched, as they deserve to be as full members of California society.
Right-winger David Harmer appears to have been shamed by Brian's post yesterday - after telling reporters all week he would not concede the CA-11 race to Jerry McNerney despite the final count showing him behind, Harmer is finally conceding:
GOP Congressional candidate David Harmer has officially conceded his East Bay race to Democratic incumbent Jerry McNerney.
Harmer confirmed the news Friday night in a text to The Chronicle -- which we're touched to say that Dave sent from a screening of "Tangled" he was attending with his kids. Wow. I think he just won a Chronnie for that move. Best Way/Place to Reveal a Concession.
"Called & congratulated him this afternoon," Harmer texted The Chronicle. "Don't intend to contest results. Will issue statement tomorrow. In movie now w/kids."
It's nice to see a California Republican finally admit reality for change. Harmer and his fellow Republicans believed they had a chance to take out McNerney, but couldn't do it even in a wave election year.
Of course, as we've been explaining here at Calitics, the California Republican Party exempted themselves from that wave. Because of their right-wing extremism - Harmer, after all, called for the abolition of public schools - the CRP has made itself unelectable in this state. True, they will win some legislative and Congressional elections, as well as local races, from time to time, but the overall trend is against them, as Harmer has learned.
Jerry McNerney has become quite a disappointment after being propelled to victory in 2006 by a wave of progressive activism. Just this week he joined Republicans to oppose the middle-class tax cut because it did not include extensions of the cuts for the rich. To be sure, McNerney has also voted along with the rest of the Democratic caucus in support of things like health care reform and the stimulus, so he's certainly not on the right.
But McNerney is a good example of my point that California politics is being realigned to exclude the right and instead be oriented around a battle between those on the left and those who swear fealty to a corporate agenda. Depending on how McNerney's district looks after redistricting, he should be a prime target for a progressive challenge in 2012.
With the belated victory of Kamala Harris as Attorney General, the full results of the 2010 election are in for California. There many things that progressives can be proud of - a sweep of statewide offices, picking up another Assembly seat, defeating prop 23 and passing prop 25. On the other hand, there are also some major disappointments - the defeat of prop 19 (marijuana legalization), the defeat of prop 21 (a VLF to fund the state parks), the defeat of prop 24 (rolling back corporate tax breaks), and the passage of prop 26 (2/3rds requirement for fees). Prop 26 especially complicates what this victory means for California.
Indeed, our situation is a lot like the national picture after the 2008 elections - we have an executive who straddles the line between the left and right wings of the Democratic Party, a big legislative majority, but not the ability to break the fiscal deadlock and really be able to govern our state.
California voters came out in droves to support Proposition 19 this November. More than 4.1 million people voted for Prop. 19, which would have allowed adults 21 and older to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for personal use and allow cities and counties to tax and regulate commercial sales. That's more votes than Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina garnered. Though the measure didn't pass, the degree of support marks an undeniable leap forward in the movement to end marijuana prohibition. In the end, Prop. 19 achieved a higher percentage of "yes" votes (46%) than any state-level legalization measure on the ballot over the past decade.
This is clearly only the beginning of a new, more rational public discussion about marijuana. It's no longer a question of whether marijuana prohibition should end, but rather when and how. Post-election polling data shows that many voters who rejected Prop. 19 nonetheless believe that marijuana should be made legal. Even the leaders of the opposition to Prop. 19 publicly stated that they are not opposed to marijuana legalization, "if it's done the right way."
I'm probably one of the few Chris Christie fans on this board, but this article is, in a nutshell, what we need to do as progressives to further our cause.
I usually don't get to spend much time watching the events I put together at Netroots Nation. With a 3 day event comprised of over 100 sessions, over 300 speakers, over 100 sponsors and 2000+ attendees most of my time is spent in our show office. Thankfully I had a little more time at Netroots California to just take the content in. I was tied to one room for the most part, so there's a lot of great stuff I missed. But for the sessions I did watch there are a few ideas that stuck with me.
UCLA law prof Jonathan Zasloff argues that Prop 26 doesn't undermine AB 32 and that the California Air Resources Board still has the ability to impose an oil severance fee:
First, take a look at the careful analysis that Cara, Sean, and Rhead produced a couple of weeks ago. It notes one extremely important fact about Proposition 26: its retroactive provisions only go back to January 2010, and AB 32 was enacted in 2006. AB 32 explicitly authorizes the California Air Resources Board to impose regulatory fees. Since Proposition 26 only applies to state “statutes,” it does not affect administrative regulations.
While this still screws state and local governments' ability to impose fees for any other activity unrelated to AB 32 (for example, at Netroots California on Saturday Ted Lieu said he'd like to levy a foreclosure fee on banks, but that Prop 26 makes this nearly impossible), Zasloff's argument is that Prop 26 cannot stop CARB from implementing any AB 32-related fees since voters clearly intended to uphold AB 32:
By passing Proposition 26, could we reasonably read the state’s voters as wanting to undermine AB 32? Absolutely not, because at the same time they passed Proposition 26 with a small though clear (52.8%) majority, they overwhelmingly (61.2%) rejected Proposition 23, which would have suspended AB 32. Thus, any doubts in interpreting Proposition 26 must be resolved in favor of allowing AB 32 to continue. Put another way, Proposition 26 has no effect on the broad grant of authority to the California Air Resources Board to implement, enforce, and fulfill the purposes of AB 32....
Thus, if CARB found with substantial evidence that, say, an oil severance fee — which charges oil as it is pumped from the ground — would be an appropriate way of internalizing the external costs of petroleum, then California courts would be obliged to defer to this determination. California is the only oil-producing state that lacks such a severance fee. Other such fossil fuel fees would also be permissible for CARB to impose, for the purposes of fulfilling AB 32′s mandate.
Zasloff's arguments are important, and I expect to see this employed in a future court battle over the meaning and implementation of Prop 26. It does indeed appear that Prop 26 won't undermine AB 32 to the extent we feared.
However, that's just one small silver lining. Prop 26's passage will have massively negative fiscal ramifications for state and local governments, making our budget crisis much worse and destroying our ability to recoup the externalized costs of other private actions. We got rid of the 2/3rds rule for budgets in the passage of Prop 25. Now it's time to lower the 2/3rds rule for taxes and fees. That battle begins today.
The exit polling is clear - California Democrats won a big victory on Tuesday night because Jerry Brown and the rest of the Democratic ticket reached beyond the white base that constitutes the Republican electorate. At right you can see the exit polling results for the gubernatorial race, indicating that while Whitman won white voters overall and voters over 65, she did poorly everywhere else.
Democratic victories on Tuesday would have been even more substantial had more of the electorate showed up. 21% of voters were 65 and over, and 45% were between age 45 and 65, with just 12% being age 18-29. 62% were white, but 22% were Latino - and while Brown dominated among Latinos, he essentially split the white vote.
Overall, this paints a picture of a state whose electorate - even older white voters - do not respond well to exclusionist appeals. Whitman made much of her anti-immigrant, anti-Latino politics, and it not only cost her big among Latinos, it also helped her lose younger white voters whose vision of California is of a state where everyone is welcome and seen as an equally deserving member of society.
This trend is mirrored nationally. Pew Hispanic Center reports that Latinos broke 64-34 for Democrats across the country. In Nevada, Harry Reid put on a clinic in mobilizing a working class coalition led by Latinos to stop Sharron Angle.
In terms of ideology, here in California "moderates" broke 60-35 for Brown, with "independents" breaking 47-43 for Whitman. This might be explained partly by the trend the PCCC identified nationally, that many Obama independents stayed home out of frustration and left a more Republican-friendly bloc of independents to tip the balance of several elections around the country. Here in California, the fact that Republican-friendly independents are a much smaller portion of the overall electorate (all independents were 27% of the exit poll sample) may explain their lower impact.
Over at Mother Jones, Kevin Drum takes a look at the national polls and finds that the core of the Democratic coalition held together. A bloc of people who stayed home in 2008 - probably teabaggers - were the biggest movers to Republicans, along with whites, seniors, and rural voters. Urban voters, mothers, Millennials, and African Americans were the least likely to shift to the GOP.
So taken together, it seems clear that while older whites may have broken for Republicans, the rest of the population - i.e. the majority - either broke for the Democrats or only barely moved to the right. And since it's the shrinking parts of the population - whites and old folks - who broke most for Republicans, it'd be right to conclude that 2010 was a temporary setback for Democrats that can be reversed once the Obama Administration gets its head out of its ass and starts helping people get jobs instead of helping Wall Street get richer.
Democrats searching for good news amid the rubble of Tuesday's midterm election results can look to Latinos and African Americans, two groups of voters that stayed with the party in large numbers.
But that, in a sense, is like taking comfort in that fact that as your house is falling down around you, it isn't also on fire.
The Democratic Party was overwhelmingly rejected by whites, independents and seniors. Perhaps most troubling to Democrats was that increasing numbers of women also turned toward the Republican Party.
How is that bad news? Latinos are the fastest-growing demographic group not just in California, but in the country. They clearly swung the California and Nevada elections, and perhaps several others. To put it gently, seniors are not exactly going to be in the electorate for very long, and whites' numbers are shrinking in the key battleground states.
The LA Times article also claims Dems are losing women:
The Democratic erosion was perhaps most accentuated by the flight of women, who were among the party's most enthusiastic supporters in 2006 and 2008. According to exit poll data, women essentially split their votes evenly between Democrats and Republicans on Tuesday. The last time that happened was in 2002.
White women in particular defected from Democrats, giving their votes to Republicans by an 18-point margin. Similarly, 57% percent of married women voted for Republicans, while unmarried women - a more liberal group - turned out in smaller numbers than in 2008.
I don't read this as a "flight" from Democrats. Lower turnout levels are a big part of this story. And here in California, women went for Brown 55-39. Clearly, women felt as many other voters did that the DC Democrats hadn't done enough to help repair the economy (which is true) and some stayed home, some voted Republican.
But there's really no evidence that the 2010 election portends long-term doom for Democrats. Instead it is Republicans who are in trouble. They won by appealing to a shrinking group of people who are determined to hog democracy and prosperity for themselves at the exclusion of the young and the nonwhite. If Republicans follow through, they will merely repeat Meg Whitman's error and alienate the rest of the electorate - Republicans cannot maintain their majorities for very long at all if they cannot win over people of color and younger voters of all backgrounds.
California and Nevada show the future - and it's a future where today's Republican Party, predicated on defense of white privilege, is doomed.
By Jakada Imani
Executive Director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Time and again we see, when we come together and focus on a shared vision, we make a difference. Real progress only happens when people move together; that is why we call it a movement. On Tuesday, millions of us pulled together. Through our work with Communities United Against the Dirty Energy Prop, communities of color and our allies made history, again, by soundly defeating Prop 23.
Polling in early August told us that our communities could be tricked by the slick lies and dirty tricks of Prop 23 backers. That changed when Communities United launched its statewide mobilization drive reaching over 350,000 voters. The Dirty Energy Prop started to lose the minute our coalition of 130 justice-minded organizations took to the streets and air waves reminding voters that California is strongest when we choose health, jobs, and the planet- together. On Tuesday, Proposition 23 was soundly defeated in 8 of the 10 counties where we focused our work. Even the two most conservative counties --Kern and Orange-- passed Prop 23 with a shockingly narrow margin.
Our strength as an organized movement is also seen in our partners Oakland Rising and the California Alliance who were key in the passing of Proposition 25 (a simple majority vote for the state budget) and threw down to defeat of Prop 23. Oakland Rising, an electoral alliance of which we are an anchor member, filled over 400 door knocking shifts in election season- the highest number in the State and IDed a record number of voters to stand with us. When we look at the results on all of California's ballot measures, we can truly see that our collective effort on 23 and 25 made a difference -- bucking the otherwise conservative trend of the night.
Nationally, even the successes of the Tea Party across the country, while a true setback, bear a valuable lesson for us -- people working together change the game. Let us hold that truth in our hearts and know, more than ever, that our work to bring people together to make change is crucial in building a brighter future where all people and communities thrive.
Another critical lesson hammered home Tuesday night: people don't base their votes on facts- if they did, millions of Americans would not vote against their own best interests. Our votes are more likely based on emotion, often fear or anger. With our economy in the dumps, people have a right to be angry and it's easy for folks to be confused as to who is to blame- letting hate mongers point a blaming finger at everyone from immigrants to the Government to people who believe that everyone should have health care.
We, however, are not confused. The problem isn't any one party or politician or even any one corporation. Instead of basing policies and our election day decisions on fear, we want to build a society where decisions are made based on love and our common concerns. When Proposition 23 first showed up, people feared they had to choose between good jobs and the environment. Fear drove support of the Dirty Energy Prop. We worked to trigger different emotions -- the feelings of love and protection that folks of color and our allies have for our children, our environment and our economy. That helped us ensure that the future of California is one that puts people and the planet ahead of Big Oil's profits.
Despite dismaying election results across the country, we celebrate that California swung back to its roots as a Blue State. As Meg Whitman learned, money alone can't buy you victory. We look forward to working with Governor Elect Jerry Brown to implement AB32, close the state's abusive and costly youth prison system, and bring peace and prosperity to all Californians.
The election, while a mixed bag of wins and losses, is just one short trailmarker in our march toward justice. Money and elections alone don't determine the future. People-powered action, fueled by hope and the knowledge that things should and can be better, is how change happens. The Ella Baker Center knows the future is one where every person can thrive and we look forward to working with you to make that vision come true.
There were nine measures on the statewide November ballot and NRDC took positions on four of them: we supported Propositions 21 and 25, and opposed Propositions 23 and 26.
Proposition 23 was the largest public referendum in history on climate and clean energy policy, with almost 10 million voters, and is a decisive victory for California's clean energy future. The measure was rejected by almost a two to one margin, with over 61 percent voting against Proposition 23. NRDC and a broad bipartisan coalition of environmental and public health advocates, businesses, labor unions, the NAACP, Latino organizations, community groups, utilities, consumers -- and yes, even some oil companies - fought Proposition 23 together. This coalition represents the new face of the environmental movement and promises a clean energy future for California. We will continue to work together to foster policies that provide multiple benefits, including a prosperous economy and improved public health.
Voters also passed Proposition 25, which will help end budget gridlock by allowing passage of a state budget with a simple majority vote rather than the two-thirds vote currently required. Budget gridlock and the supermajority budget vote requirement was threatening the very foundation of state government; in recent years, a handful of legislators have been able to hold the entire state budget hostage as they pushed to weaken or repeal critical environmental policies in exchange for their budget votes.
Then voters turned around and voted for Proposition 26, a measure funded by oil, alcohol and tobacco interests that will make the budget harder to balance, again. It will shift the cost of public health and environmental damages caused by companies from those responsible to taxpayers and create another $1 billion hole in the state budget. This was a short sighted measure, but this vote will not stop California's path breaking climate program. Mary Nichols, Chair of the State Air Resources Board which is responsible for carrying out AB 32 said this morning that "Prop 26 does not impair the scoping plan adopted in 2008 or any regulations developed under that plan. AB 32 is on track, with renewed vigor thanks to the resounding defeat of Prop 23 by the voters."
Proposition 21, went down to a surprising defeat given the popularity of our state parks. This measure would have helped keep our state parks accessible to all and fund sorely needed maintenance.
The defeat of Proposition 23 is much more far-reaching in its significance and impact than any setbacks on Propositions 21 and 26. This victory on climate and clean energy was particularly significant for the Golden State and the rest of the nation. In an election when the economy trumped all other issues, including two wars, it is no surprise why. Jobs in California's clean energy sector have grown 10 times faster than the statewide average over the past five years, and the clean tech sector attracted $9 billion cumulative venture capital investment from 2005 through 2009.
We hope that this campaign will inspire the nation in another way. Proposition 23 was defeated because Californians are devoted to pragmatism and compromise rather than inflexible ideology. We've done it in the past by passing the nation's most progressive air and water quality laws - regulations that consequently served as models for other states and the federal government.
As we celebrate a victory for common sense, it's more clear than ever that working together is what makes us stronger. We need the great technical expertise, brain power and vast capital resources of businesses, the workforce of unions, the reach of diverse community groups and the wide sweep of public and private partners to make an efficient transition to the coming clean energy economy. And sooner or later, we will all work together for the common good. We have no other choice.
These Two California Based Factions of the Tea Party Brand Really Don't Like Each Other Very Much. Think of Tea People Hatfield and McCoys!
Leaders of the Tea Party Patriots organization declared Tuesday's election results "a victory for liberty," but blamed a rival Tea Party organization for Senate losses in Nevada and Delaware, saying the group shouldn't have intervened in those elections by making endorsements in the primary.
The two organizations have a history of feuding over how involved national groups should be in elections. The Tea Party Patriots organization does not endorse candidates, while the California-based Tea Party Express endorsed numerous candidates this cycle.
Asked if Tea Party voters should be more pragmatic in nominating more electable candidates during future elections, Jenny Beth Martin, a national coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots, took a swipe at the rival Tea Party Express.
"One thing that we've seen across the country is that in places where the Tea Party people were allowed to nominate their own nominees and were not influenced by top-down political organizations, such as Tea Party Express, the Republicans did win," Martin said at a Wednesday morning news conference in Washington, D.C.
California Democrats are poised to have a clean sweep of the statewide elected offices, depending on whether Kamala Harris can maintain a razor-thin margin of victory over Steve Cooley. (Seriously, who the hell votes a Brown-Boxer-Newsom-Cooley ticket? WTF is wrong with those people?)
Here are the results as we know them, with 96.6% reporting across California. Note that the Secretary of State's site appears to be back up. It's not her fault the site crashed - they apparently got screwed by a vendor that made promises they could not keep.
Governor: Brown 54, Whitman 41
US Senate: Boxer 52, Fiorina 42
Lt. Gov: Newsom 50, Maldonado 39
Sec State: Bowen 53, Dunn 38
Controller: Chiang 55, Strickland 36
Treasurer: Lockyer 56, Walters 36
Attorney General: Harris 46.1%, Cooley 45.6%
Insurance Commissioner: Jones 50, Villines 38
Supt. of Public Instruction: Torlakson 55, Aceves 45
Ballot props:
Prop 19: 46 yes, 54 no
Prop 20: 61 yes, 39 no
Prop 21: 42 yes, 58 no
Prop 22: 61 yes, 39 no
Prop 23: 39 yes, 61 no
Prop 24: 42 yes, 58 no
Prop 25: 55 yes, 45 no
Prop 26: 53 yes, 47 no
Prop 20: 40 yes, 60 no
AD-5: Pan 49.1, Pugno 46.1
AD-10: Huber 51, Sieglock 43
AD-15: Buchanan 53, Wilson 47
AD-53: Butler 50, Mintz 43
AD-68: Mansoor 56, Nguyen 44
AD-70: Wagner 58, Fox 37
So. What all does this mean?
First, that Californians want to be governed by Democrats, and certainly not by wealthy CEOs. The Whitman bust is one of the most laughable and epic political failures we've ever seen. She spent $160 million to lose by double digits. Ultimately she and Fiorina could not overcome the basic contradiction of Republican politics: their base hates Latinos, but California's elections are increasingly decided by Latinos.
More importantly, Californians rejected right-wing economics. They rejected Whitman and Fiorina's attack on government and public spending to produce economic recovery.
The loss of the House stings - California will feel that painfully, not only because the first Speaker from California has lost her majority, but because the new House majority is deeply hostile to the values Californians just showed.
The propositions could have gone better. The defeat of Prop 19 was not surprising, and while I wish it had passed, it turned in a better showing than some had projected. Prop 21's failure just sucks; are people really skittish about spending $18 a year to save state parks? Prop 26's passage is going to cause a lot of problems. We won a huge victory in passing Prop 25 and defeating Prop 23, of course. And in what should come as no big surprise, voters overwhelmingly said they want redistricting done by an independent commission.
Looking at the legislative races, Democrats basically treaded water. With a more 2008-like turnout we could have flipped some of these seats, such as AD-68 or AD-70. But we've built a strong base for the future.
Overall, Californians rejected the right-wing and showed they want a Democratic future. But progressives still have our work cut out for us, both nationally and here in California.
Will the right-wing tide break at the Sierra Nevada? One can only hope.
Follow the returns live at the Secretary of State's site. Keep in mind that the bigger counties like Los Angeles tend to report later in the evening, so there may be some races and ballot props that we won't be able to know the outcome of until late.
UPDATE: So all the major networks have called the races for Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer. But Whitman is refusing to concede, as Pete Wilson is telling her that there are still a lot of ballots to count. I'm hearing that as of 10:35, with 24% in, Brown is up 50-45. So Whitman might just be stalling so that if she does give a concession speech, it's at 2AM when nobody is paying attention and as few Californians as possible will see her epic failure.
UPDATE 2: Whitman finally concedes, announces campaign for governor of Texas in 2014.
Well, here we go - the November 2010 election is finally here. Finally our TV screens will be freed from the tyranny of Meg Whitman's mug for the first time since the Winter Olympics. (Although I've started seeing Lindsey Vonn in TV ads, which is nice.) Californians will awaken tomorrow with a new governor-elect, although the word "new" should probably not be taken literally in Jerry Brown's case.
But tonight will offer some fascinating, compelling, and sometimes gut-wrenching election returns, not just across the country but here in California. Here's what we at Calitics will be watching for tonight:
• How big will our Democratic wave be? California is bucking the national trend - fueled by a diverse electorate, a maturing progressive movement, and strong campaigns, Democrats are poised to do well at the top of the ticket. But how deep will that wave go? Will it be enough to overcome corporate money downticket to put Kamala Harris and Dave Jones into office? Will it be enough to save some of the close seats in the House of Representatives? Will it be enough to pick off some Republican seats?
• Can Dems play defense? Incumbent Democrats are generally going to cruise tonight, but in a few districts things are much less certain. In the House, Jerry McNerney (CA-11), Jim Costa (CA-20) and Loretta Sanchez (CA-47) are facing strong right-wing challenges, with Dennis Cardoza (CA-18) vulnerable as well. If people voting for Brown and Boxer stick around and vote downticket for these Dems, they should be OK, but any one of them could lose tonight. In the Legislature, Dems are nervous but confident they can keep their Assembly seats, with Alyson Huber (AD-10) and Joan Buchanan (AD-15) being the most vulnerable.
• Can Dems play offense? If there's a blue wave tonight, we'll know it by how many - if any - new seats Democrats pick up. The most important battle is in SD-12, where Anna Caballero is fighting a brutal battle against Anthony Cannella. Caballero will do extremely well in the Salinas Valley portion of the district, but it's much less clear how she'll do in the Central Valley, where the race will be decided.
Dems may also have some pickups in the Assembly. Richard Pan in AD-5 is in a tight battle with arch-bigot Andy Pugno, author of Prop 8. Melissa Fox in AD-70 and Phu Nguyen in AD-68 could be Democratic pickups in Orange County.
If tonight is a good night for Dems, we could see some Republican House seats fall. Ami Bera in CA-3 probably has the best chance, but any one of Bill Hedrick (CA-44), Steve Pougnet (CA-45), and Beth Krom (CA-48) has a chance to surprise.
• Will corporate money pick off a few statewide seats after all?Karl Rove and big corporations are spending millions to defeat Kamala Harris and Dave Jones - these races really matter, and even though corporate money might flame out in the higher profile races, we've got to hope that it fails to cost us the Attorney General and Insurance Commissioner seats.
• Will we sweep the propositions? Ballot propositions have a tendency to not turn out the way progressives like, although that has begun to change ever since the historic victory over Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005. Tonight could see a progressive sweep, especially if the defeat of Prop 23 and the passage of Prop 25 are joined by the defeat of Prop 26 and the passage of Prop 24. We also need Prop 21 to pass and, last but not least, I really hope Prop 19 pulls out the victory and sets California - and eventually the nation - on the path away from Prohibition.
• Will Nancy Pelosi remain speaker? As I explained over the weekend, losing her as Speaker would be catastrophic. I'm pretty confident about most things here in California today, but not this. Republican control of the House would inaugurate a new round of Hooverism and could even undermine what remains of our democracy. Speaker Pelosi has been a fighter for progressive causes and for California. If she loses her majority tonight, it will be terrible - especially since it won't be her fault, as she will have been undone by the failures of President Obama and the Senate Democrats.
We'll be covering the elections results here at Calitics and, at least for myself, on Twitter - follow me @cruickshank. Get out there and vote, and then come back here and talk about the results!
AKA California's Good Senator. Boxer is a reliable liberal in a senate full of utterly useless corporate centrists, and quite unafraid to make waves in the service of doing the right thing. In a career that has mostly been dominated by Republican control of the senate, Boxer has distinguished herself by pushing back against a decade of wingnuttery. By contrast, I knew about Fiorina's awful reputation in silicon valley a decade before she decided to make a vanity run for senate, just from techies I knew heaping scorn upon the CEO who drove HP into the ground and then walked away with millions. Thank goodness Boxer's a formidable campaigner, and Fiorina appears to be headed for the dusty place where all the gazillionaire right wing vanity candidates go after they lose, right next to Michael Huffington.
House of Representatives
CA-01 - Mike Thompson
Mike's generally a pretty good guy, and there have been no groaners like the credit card/bankruptcy bill. this time around. Mike's candidate-for-life in that district, but he does a good job representing his people, and I respect that.
CA-02 - Jim Reed
This district is so gerrymandered for Republicans it isn't funny, but I have to applaud Reed for making a serious hard run at the execrable Wally Herger, who isn't even bothering to campaign this time around, much less debate Reed.
CA-03 - Ami Bera
I am thrilled to see Democrats finally start to compete east of the Carquinez, and Bera is certainly giving Lungren a run for his money. As a once and possibly future denizen of the 3rd CD, I really hope Bera knocks off that right wing SoCal carpetbagger. The 80 corridor has changed, and deserves a good congressman.
Meg Whitman, trailing in the polls, is feeling pretty desperate as she stares at an expensive defeat on Tuesday. On the campaign trail this Halloween, Whitman resorted to scaring voters with the bogeyman - yep, Gray Davis:
Whitman also told the crowd she had heard a "scary rumor" that Brown had picked Davis, Brown's former chief of staff who was recalled from the governor's office in 2003, to lead Brown's transition team. The crowd booed.
Brown spokesman Sterling Clifford said the rumor was false.
"There is no transition team in place," he said. "That is a Wednesday conversation if we win."
Whitman's just scraping the bottom of the barrel here, desperately hoping that she can pull out a victory by scaring voters into thinking a Jerry Brown administration would mean a Gray Davis comeback. Like voters are going to care?
This silly scare tactic is a sign not only that Whitman has nothing to offer Californians as she tries to climb back into the race - it's a sign she is fundamentally out of touch with the concerns and hopes of the voters.
Californians don't care about Gray Davis. They forgot about Gray Davis the moment he was recalled in 2003. Instead they care about their jobs, their schools, their homes, their parks, their health care. And they know that a wealthy CEO hack like Whitman only cares about those things just long enough to make a profit for herself and her friends - whereas Jerry Brown spends his time talking about building a sustainable future for California:
"The key to California is imagination, it's innovation, it's creativity. It's not going backwards," he said. "All these new ideas are ready to put into place. This idea of solar and wind, before, they laughed at that."...
He added: "I have a vision of California cars, of electric cars, powered by California sun, California wind, California steam," he said.
Whitman isn't going to be beaten by opinion polls or by bad campaign tactics. She'll only be beaten by votes. Make sure you vote - and then help GOTV these last 48 hours.
In the closing days of a very long campaign, Democrat Jerry Brown has opened up a ten-point lead - 49% to 39% - over Republican rival Meg Whitman. Another 5% of voters are favoring other candidates and 7% remain undecided.
The current poll finds Brown shoring up his support among women, non-partisans, Latinos and in Los Angeles County. In addition, despite heavy paid media presence of Whitman over the past year, she has been unable to appreciably increase the proportion of voters who view her favorably (42%). The proportion of voters who hold a negative opinion of her has grown to 51%, its highest level recorded.
Reread that second paragraph. Whitman trains among women, Latinos, independents, and in Los Angeles County. Clearly, she has totally failed to break out beyond her right-wing base, which represents a shrinking minority of California, and has no broad appeal across the majority of the electorate.
So how does Whitman respond to this? By making one last desperate bid for the mainstream of California politics?
Hah, no, that would be the smart move, and Whitman is not a smart politician. No, Whitman's super secret plan to win the election is to further alienate Latinos and moderates by throwing her housekeeper overboard and chasing after her right-wing base:
As Republican gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman tours parts of California that have traditionally been receptive to GOP candidates, she's also appealing directly to conservative TV audiences, hoping to fire up her party's base....
Until now she has declined to comment on whether the former housekeeper should be deported. But Wednesday, in an interview with Greta Van Susteren, Whitman answered the question head on. "Well, the answer is it breaks my heart, but she should be deported because she forged documents and she lied about her immigration status," Whitman said. "And it breaks my heart. Gloria Allred pulled off a political stunt. And you know what? On Nov. 3, no one's going to care about Nicky Diaz. But the law is the law and we live in the rule of law. It's important."
Whitman, who once called her housekeeper "a member of the family," now wants her deported even though she's lived in California for a very long time. Wow.
I don't know what else needs to be said, except that Meg Whitman is not just a bad choice to lead California - she's just a bad person, period. No wonder she has a 51% disapproval rating from Californians (according to today's Field Poll).
Of course, it's not just that Whitman is self-destructing through her right-wing extremism. Jerry Brown has confounded his critics by running an extremely effective, efficient, and clever campaign that has maximized their scarce resources. Brown's TV ads in particular, such as the now-classic "Echo" ad, have been very effective for a low price. Brown's online team has been doing excellent work, giving Brown over 1.1 million Twitter followers as opposed to Whitman's 242,000.
More importantly, Brown understood that he could not win California without reaching out to its new progressive majority, and has been very effective at doing so. He provided a clear contrast to Whitman's immigrant-bashing by making a clear moral argument in defense of immigrant rights - including the rights of the undocumented.
If Jerry Brown wins next Tuesday, it will be because he ran a good campaign that understood California is a diverse place that cannot stand the right wing - while Meg Whitman mistakenly thought she was running for governor of Texas.
(Assemblymember Nancy Skinner on why progressives should oppose Prop 22)
Next Tuesday, election day will be an important day for progressives in California. A truly vital issue on the ballot may be one that we haven’t heard a lot about -- opposing Proposition 22. I urge you to join the California Democratic Party, Health Access, the California Nurses Association, the Courage Campaign and a host of other organizations in opposition to this poorly conceived initiative.
Proposition 22 violates the agreement forged between stakeholders in 2004 that was approved by the voters as Proposition 1A. That measure protected local resources, but allowed the state to borrow local funds in times of fiscal crisis, fully repaying them within three years. Proposition 22 will reverse that agreement and prohibit loans for public schools, children’s health care, seniors and the disabled.
With the handcuffs Proposition 22 would put on the 2011-12 budget resolution, public schools stand to lose $1 billion immediately, and an additional $400 million a year after that. In Home Support Services that allow senior citizens and the disabled to live with dignity in their own homes and funding for health care, at a time when our safety net for children is already about to collapse, will be at risk of being cut. County health and public safety services will be eviscerated. Now is not the time to cut that safety net even more.
Proposition 22 reprioritizes state budget funding by putting redevelopment agencies in front of education, public safety, the poor, blind and disabled. This change in priorities does not reflect our progressive values.
What California needs to make our local governments, education and social services whole is restoration of the revenues that have been lost during the Schwarzenegger Administration, not guarantees that put one portion of the state’s shrinking revenue pie above another. The California League of Cities, the sponsors of Prop 22, was unable to get agreement from its Board to support new revenues so they have put forward a protectionist measure that puts a host of state services at risk.
I agree with hard protections for locally enacted revenue, but Prop 22 goes much further to the detriment of our values.
I ask that you oppose Proposition 22 to protect our progressive values and the services California’s most vulnerable citizens rely on most.
For information please visit the No on Proposition 22 Website. www.votenoprop22.org
