CA-Sen: California Quake

[KCDem]

Imagine a Kamala Harris vs. Carly Fiorina Senate race. I would rate that Lean D.

Yeah I can imagine it as the snooziest snooze fest you ever did snooze Carly Fiorina lostby 10 points in a midterm, she would lose by twice that with Presidential turnout.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Imagine a Kamala Harris vs. Carly Fiorina Senate race. I would rate that Lean D.

LOLOLOLOLOL

Barbara Boxer was unpopular in terms of her approval rating in 2010, and Fiorina still lost by 10 points in a republican Tsunami. She's not going to beat Kamala Harris with presidential turnout.

The only republican candidate who can possibly win a D vs. R race with presidential turnout (that I can think of) is David Valadao (R, CA-21), and even his chance of winning would be no higher than 20%. However, republicans may not want to court him, as doing so could very well mean watching his house seat go democratic in 2016.

[Maxwell]

I'd say the most interesting race would be Faulconer or Valadao v. Villariagosa.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

I doubt it will be 2016-SEN, but eventually top 2 will create an R vs. R statewide race.  And I think that will lead to its repeal shortly thereafter.

Didn't we almost get that with the Controller race this year?

[Vosem]

I doubt it will be 2016-SEN, but eventually top 2 will create an R vs. R statewide race.  And I think that will lead to its repeal shortly thereafter.

Didn't we almost get that with the Controller race this year?

Yes. Swearengin (R ) got 25%, Yee (D) received 22%, Perez (D) received 22%, and Evans (R ) received 21%. The key reason that this came so close to working was because there were no further Republicans and two minor left-wing candidates (a Green and a third Democrat) received 6% and 5%. It also shows the importance of the two candidates being close to evenly matched; Swearengin defeating Evans by 4 points was too much of a spread.

It'll take some luck, but within a decade or so it'll be bound to have happened.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Hopefully we can get a proposition on the ballot to repeal the awful top-2 system to accompany future Senator Harris's ascension in 2016, and lock-in future Senator Garcetti in 2018.

[CountryClassSF]

Lib on lib slug fest!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Hopefully we can get a proposition on the ballot to repeal the awful top-2 system to accompany future Senator Harris's ascension in 2016, and lock-in future Senator Garcetti in 2018.

[Free Bird]

Does this basically mean bye bye Dianne as well?

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

Does this basically mean bye bye Dianne as well?

I've always thought she'd be a lifer, but it seems plausible she'd retire, especially if Democrats can't retake the majority after 2016.

[Sol]

What would be interesting is if the race is Harris vs. Newsom. Would Pubbies flock to the latter?

[Türkisblau]

Now just to find a CA Democrat that is not as bad as Boxer, but even doing that would be difficult.

[DrScholl]

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

[Vosem]

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.

[IceSpear]

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.

"Without much difficulty"? The blue avatars thinking they now have a permanent majority because they had one good election is very amusing, particularly when said election had record low turnout.

Democrats were supposed to gain seats in 2010 immediately after 2008. Republicans were favorites to take the Senate in 2012 immediately after 2010. Democrats were favorites to hold the Senate immediately after 2012. Most "analysis" at this point is just lame extrapolation from the election that just happened, which is even more useless now that the electorate is schizophrenic and a large chunk only turns out for presidentials. Yet from your confidence, you'd think Republicans had a 70 seat majority.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'd imagine the California Democratic party will endorse a candidate and try to force the other Democrats out to try to get exactly 1 candidate in top 2. That's better than taking a risk of 0 or 2 with top 2. But either way, getting rid of top 2 would be much better.

[MalaspinaGold]

Lib on lib slug fest!

I think your sinful side is bubbling up. Watch yourself.

[Landslide Lyndon]

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.

Um, no. It was Arnold who insisted on top-two, put it on the ballot and the Californians in their infinite wisdom approved it.

[smoltchanov]

As an Indie i am absolutely in favor of top 2. And, as one really wise person wrote on DKE - without it Democrats almost surely would lose CA-07, CA-16, CA-52 and, quite possible some other (CA-03 and CA-09 come to mind) house races this year. The 3rd party candidates in California are more often then not come "from the left" (especially Greens), and they would be quite able to snatch substantial vote, giving the above mentioned seats to Republicans.

More so - California politics was substantially an exercise in 2 sorts of idiocy before "top 2": right-wing Republican and left-wing Democratic. Nowhere in US was politics more polarized then in California. No chances for moderates and compromise. Now i at least see some reasonable "business Democrats" and even "moderate Republicans" elected. This is a sort of "return to normalcy" after idiocy of the past... And it seems - most of California people agree with me (and i don't care about shrill, but vocal "activists" of both types). So, "top 2" has good chances to survive...

[Boston Bread]

I'd imagine the California Democratic party will endorse a candidate and try to force the other Democrats out to try to get exactly 1 candidate in top 2. That's better than taking a risk of 0 or 2 with top 2. But either way, getting rid of top 2 would be much better.

Not necessarily, the more conservative dem one may win with crossover votes. Silicon Valley already tried that technique to get more moderate democrats elected in some house seats.
Hopefully they repeal it before they get an R on R statewide election, it hasn't even made the state any less polarized.

[smoltchanov]

I'd imagine the California Democratic party will endorse a candidate and try to force the other Democrats out to try to get exactly 1 candidate in top 2. That's better than taking a risk of 0 or 2 with top 2. But either way, getting rid of top 2 would be much better.

Not necessarily, the more conservative dem one may win with crossover votes. Silicon Valley already tried that technique to get more moderate democrats elected in some house seats.
Hopefully they repeal it before they get an R on R statewide election, it hasn't even made the state any less polarized.

On the contrary - it did. State mass media openly recognized after this month election that legislature became substantially more moderate. Mostly - because of "business Democrats", less so - because of Republicans, but even them seem to be somewhat less rigid ideologically then their predecessors 5 - 10 years ago.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

I'd imagine the California Democratic party will endorse a candidate and try to force the other Democrats out to try to get exactly 1 candidate in top 2. That's better than taking a risk of 0 or 2 with top 2. But either way, getting rid of top 2 would be much better.

Not necessarily, the more conservative dem one may win with crossover votes. Silicon Valley already tried that technique to get more moderate democrats elected in some house seats.
Hopefully they repeal it before they get an R on R statewide election, it hasn't even made the state any less polarized.

On the contrary - it did. State mass media openly recognized after this month election that legislature became substantially more moderate. Mostly - because of "business Democrats", less so - because of Republicans, but even them seem to be somewhat less rigid ideologically then their predecessors 5 - 10 years ago.

This is blatantly incorrect. California is just as polarized, if not more, than before adoption of the top-2. It is a system of no change at the expense of third parties and the ability for voters affiliated with political parties to pick and choose their general election candidate without the coercive concern that vote splitting will squelch out your voice entirely.

[smoltchanov]

I'd imagine the California Democratic party will endorse a candidate and try to force the other Democrats out to try to get exactly 1 candidate in top 2. That's better than taking a risk of 0 or 2 with top 2. But either way, getting rid of top 2 would be much better.

Not necessarily, the more conservative dem one may win with crossover votes. Silicon Valley already tried that technique to get more moderate democrats elected in some house seats.
Hopefully they repeal it before they get an R on R statewide election, it hasn't even made the state any less polarized.

On the contrary - it did. State mass media openly recognized after this month election that legislature became substantially more moderate. Mostly - because of "business Democrats", less so - because of Republicans, but even them seem to be somewhat less rigid ideologically then their predecessors 5 - 10 years ago.

This is blatantly incorrect. California is just as polarized, if not more, than before adoption of the top-2. It is a system of no change at the expense of third parties and the ability for voters affiliated with political parties to pick and choose their general election candidate without the coercive concern that vote splitting will squelch out your voice entirely.

Fivethirtyeight is far from being an authoritative source on California politics. Frequently they make serious, sometimes - even childish errors. And to quote July's article is even more childish... I believe local California media much more. I will mention only 2 examples: Assemblyman-elect Bill Dodd (Republican in the past, "business Democrat", who beat 2 "progressives" in primary - now) and Assemblywoman-elect Catharine Baker (moderate Republican, who beat "progressive Democrat" with help from "business Democrat" candidate)

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

A Republican won't win the seat, but it being open should be lure enough to get a real candidate or a self-funder. It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for many of them.

[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.