CA-Sen: California Quake

[DrScholl]

Republicans are banking on a pickup because of the top two, but that's not at all guaranteed to happen.

[DrScholl]

Republicans are banking on a pickup because of the top two, but that's not at all guaranteed to happen.

We're not banking on a pickup; we'll be able to hold the Senate without much difficulty without one. But we are looking forward to a nice bonus we may receive entirely thanks to the efforts of the Democratic Party in California to reform the election system.

Correction, it was Abel Maldonado, a Republican, who came up with the idea of a top two system, because he thought it would benefit him.

[DrScholl]

Republicans are banking on a pickup because of the top two, but that's not at all guaranteed to happen.

We're not banking on a pickup; we'll be able to hold the Senate without much difficulty without one. But we are looking forward to a nice bonus we may receive entirely thanks to the efforts of the Democratic Party in California to reform the election system.

Correction, it was Abel Maldonado, a Republican, who came up with the idea of a top two system, because he thought it would benefit him.

It benefits all moderates, who, otherwise, had no chances against left-wing loonies in Democratic primaries, and right-wing ones - in Republican. This year election gave enough examples of that with more sensible Democrats (and in some cases - Republicans) elected, and most moonbats and wingers  - defeated. And, as a person, who greatly dislikes loonies of all types - i can only applaude.. Of course - there are opposite examples too, but first step must be made to correct partisan idiocy, which existed before (and utterly denied moderates any chances to influence political process).

There were hardly any left-wing loonies winning elections before the top two, that really has never been the case. The legislature made some of the deepest cuts to services anywhere to balance the budget before the top two was implemented. The top two didn't benefit "moderate" Republicans that much, as none of them running this year in California managed to pickup one single seat.

[DrScholl]

Republicans are banking on a pickup because of the top two, but that's not at all guaranteed to happen.

We're not banking on a pickup; we'll be able to hold the Senate without much difficulty without one. But we are looking forward to a nice bonus we may receive entirely thanks to the efforts of the Democratic Party in California to reform the election system.

Correction, it was Abel Maldonado, a Republican, who came up with the idea of a top two system, because he thought it would benefit him.

It benefits all moderates, who, otherwise, had no chances against left-wing loonies in Democratic primaries, and right-wing ones - in Republican. This year election gave enough examples of that with more sensible Democrats (and in some cases - Republicans) elected, and most moonbats and wingers  - defeated. And, as a person, who greatly dislikes loonies of all types - i can only applaude.. Of course - there are opposite examples too, but first step must be made to correct partisan idiocy, which existed before (and utterly denied moderates any chances to influence political process).

There were hardly any left-wing loonies winning elections before the top two, that really has never been the case. The legislature made some of the deepest cuts to services anywhere to balance the budget before the top two was implemented. The top two didn't benefit "moderate" Republicans that much, as none of them running this year in California managed to pickup one single seat.

Wrong. DeMayo, Gorrell and Ose almost won, and DeMayo would have win, if not for scandal. Kashkari managed to defeat Donnelly in "top 2" primary, what could not be a case in closed Republican primary. Republicans elected moderate Baker and libertarianish Hadley to Assembly. And i mentioned a substantial number of "business Democrats" elected this year (BTW, in most of the "top 2" D - D races more moderate candidates were elected, and that's natural - they get support of most Indies and some Republicans in such races). Substantial improvement over the most polarized legislature in the nation, which California was before. And it's only a beginning)))

It's spelled DeMaio, FYI and I'm not entirely sure the scandal caused him to lose, since Peters already had crossover support before that. Almost won is not the same as winning, all three lost and they only came close because of the climate.

[DrScholl]

It's highly unlikely that Republicans would not have gotten their preferred candidates under the previous primary system, as none of them faced any viable competition from the other Republican candidates that ran. With that said, I agree with the poster above, elections shouldn't be tailored to benefit anyone, moderates included. Moderates aren't entitled.

[DrScholl]

Orange County Democrats lean more economically conservative, but not enough to be a Blue Dog in the sense of the ones from red states. Loretta Sanchez used to be a moderate Republican, but that was when she running for Anaheim Council twenty years ago.

[DrScholl]

No Republican is going to win this seat and there will not be an all Republican top two, as we saw with the Controller race last year, that didn't happen in the end.

[DrScholl]

The DSCC will definitely get behind one candidate, as will the state party. I expect the field to be cleared for someone before it gets close to the primary.

[DrScholl]

Has Scott Brown ever lived in or perhaps visited the state of California?

https://twitter.com/ScottBrownCA

[DrScholl]

And the field is a little bit clearer. The DSCC wants Harris.

[DrScholl]

The DSCC is getting their candidate. I expect other Democrats to run, but Harris is definitely the front runner.

[DrScholl]

I don't recall Swawell attacking atheists. He did defeat one (a crazy one), but that certainly doesn't qualify him as being a bigot. Stark needed to go, as he is actually crazy.

[DrScholl]

Even with self-funding, Steyer would still face a challenge in finding enough of a base to make the top two over Harris.

[DrScholl]

Why's he got to be a bastard? That's incredibly harsh. Scott Peters is a good fit for that district, that's why he won, but that's not the topic at hand. Carl DeMaio wouldn't get much traction statewide, especially since donors wouldn't really be willing to put down money on a liability for a long shot race.

[DrScholl]

Orange County Democrats tend to be more conservative than Democrats from other regions of California, so most of the contenders to replace Sanchez would be ideologically similar. Reliably Democratic PVI's aren't necessarily that progressive.

As for running for Senate, Sanchez could just use a run now as experience for when Feinstein retires. Running statewide is difficult, so a dry run doesn't hurt much.

[DrScholl]

Loretta Sanchez is not a conservative or a substitute for a Republican. It's not like there is anything Republicans gain from voting tactically.

[DrScholl]

Loretta Sanchez is not a conservative or a substitute for a Republican. It's not like there is anything Republicans gain from voting tactically.

What do we have to gain by not voting tactically?

Because there would be very little difference in how either candidate would vote in the Senate should either be elected.

[DrScholl]

Sanchez voted against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, which aren't exactly things that someone very conservative would do, so I wouldn't imagine that many Republicans would be anxious to back her.